Discussion

This page has been created as a forum for you to comment on and contribute to the ideas on this website.

DISCLAIMER:

This is not a free-for-all! This is a space to learn and build understanding of the world we all inhabit. Please remain respectful and relevant to the topics laid out here. If you’re not familiar with the theses of this website, the best place to start is The End of Capitalism interview.

Comments which are attacking, inconsiderate, off-topic, pure self-promotion, ranting, racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, or otherwise oppressive will be deleted. Please be willing to challenge your own thoughts and beliefs, and not just those of others!

If you’d like to continue this conversation privately, please send your thoughts to alex@endofcapitalism.com

145 comments

Here is where you are completely wrong. You completely ignore productivity. You ignore scientific innovation. Technological change makes us all more productive. Productivity means you can produce more from less. All of this leads to societies that are richer, healthier, and prosperous.

Oil is not the lifeblood of capitalism. The power of new ideas, technology, innovation, an entrepreneurial spirit, and rule of law are the heart and soul of capitalism. Look at countries that are independent from foreign oil like Iceland and Brazil. These are capitalist, free-market economies. In fact, socialist economies like Venezuela and Iran happen to be the most dependent on oil while productivity and standards of living are far lower.

thanks for your comments. i hope i’m not ignoring productivity or technological change – both of these are important and in my opinion can be most beneficial if the technology and the product are controlled by those who worked to produce them, not giant corporations with their own agendas disconnected from what is good for the planet or the population.

are capitalist countries more prosperous? the record shows clearly that they are not, if you consider that the countries who practice the most free-market-based policies are generally Global South nations who are under the tutelage/dominion of the IMF/World Bank – entities controlled by the wealthy nations – whose recommendations for poor countries is to slash social spending and environmental protections and deregulate the market. this is what happened to Argentina for example, right before their economy collapsed in 2001 in an eerie parallel to what is happening in the US after some of those same policies.

Iceland and Brazil are great examples of nations trying to break away from the global capitalist system by turning to renewable energies that can power a sustainable development. in Iceland, much of their power comes from geothermal – in Brazil, sugarcane-based ethanol. they both have left-leaning governments who are critical of United States policy.

Venezuela and Iran are the opposite of the US in that they are oil exporters, whereas the US is the world’s largest oil importer. in other words, if those nations decided to stop exporting so much oil to the US (which they could and should), they would have to make some (beneficial) changes, but it’s the US whose economy would collapse, hence the heightened aggression against those 2 oil-producing regions by the US military.

also, Iran is by no means a socialist country – it actually has a right-wing religious fundamentalist government, which came to power after the US helped overthrow its democracy because Prime Minister Mossadegh favored using some of the oil profits to develop the country. this was when the US helped install the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, who immediately signed a contract with BP, Chevron, et al to keep those oil profits headed to the West.

the history of Venezuela is sadly similar, which surely has something to do with why the living standards are so low, as you stated.

thanks for pointing out perceived errors on my end, i’ll keep doing so for you, and hopefully we’ll end up a lot closer to the truth!

A couple of points here. You cant really grasp the rapacious changes within capitalism without understanding the ”insoluble contradictions within capitalism.;Ie the need to increase labour time and increase the rate of production per hour . hence why now find ourselves working more not less.

Also the search for cheaper sources of labour …hence why production has migrated to third world countries.

Also because this very activity takes place in an atmosphere of competition, the overall rate of profit tends to diminish . Changing production and short product lifespans mean that industry is more and more dependant on finance .hence the age of imperialism( finance ).
At a certain point it also becomes necessary to finance consumption as well as production . Hence the rise of house prices not linked to inflation ,which act as ”assets” by which credit can be ”guaranteed”.
This ultimately becomes victim to the fact that changes in first world economies that are no longer centres of production due to the migration of industry are no longer able to maintain their role as consumer if the credit receives a shock ,ie as in the subprime situation .

Once debt is revealed and investors get scared the hole thing can very quickly unravel. The fracture first appearing in the heart of finance itself.

this is the essential ‘dialectic ‘of factors that make up the insoluble contradiction of capitalism. one which it cant escape short of ultimately smashing it up and starting again, liberating the cycle so it can renew itself .

This is the organic nature of capitalism . quite fascinating if it were’nt so deadly. A law governed system that is like anything in nature .

As with the elemental forces and cycles….capitalism is now entering into the fire.

To grasp the real sense of what is happening now we have to explain capitalism not as some immoral entity or conspiracy by a ruling elite , but as a natural occuring entity of which we are all a part of.

thanks for the smart comment John. you highlighted some important ideas here. clearly there is a necessity to change the situation.

but one thing i would disagree with is the characterization of capitalism as “natural”, “organic”, or “elemental.”

on the contrary my analysis is that capitalism is the antithesis of nature because its role is to suck up all life and destroy it by pumping out artificial commodities to be bought and sold.

also, this whole process can only occur through constant violence and force, against the wishes of humanity and the planet. the NATURAL tendency is for everyone to do the opposite – to live freely and peacefully, to relax, to sustain ourselves through our labor, and to share land and resources. that is natural.

i think youve got to be careful not to slip into some sort of ”roussean ideal”. Our truth about being ” human ” is the truth of conquest and pillage that history shows us to be our historical reality .A sorry mess but it happened and still happens to this day.

When I say it is a naturally occuring system is because it is a manifestation of human activity . even plastic is natural in this sense . It is synthetic..but it is from oil. but so is a spiders web synthetic in that it is a very clever manipulation of water proteins and what have you …..It incidently is 5x the tensile strength of steel.

Be careful of the internal logic of your position . It tends towards the Dualism of old where the seperation of man from nature has its roots.

We,ve got to be careful of idealising nature . nature is violent (not with intent) but nonetheless violent ,the elemental forces are powerful and destructive but also life giving …to some how deny this is to falsify the world .Our responsibility is to reveal this ‘dialectic’ in ‘the social realm’.

We now however have an opportunity to change the world . If we distort its reality we will convince no one . the masses will move because they have no choice ,the middle classes will hedge their bets . Only powerful reasoned argument will persuade them that the continuation of capitalism is a dead end road .

The urgency of this task is now more than ever as global warming and its effects on resources will make it even harder to achieve a socialist world based on co-operation .

I might just add alex ,that idealism is distortion …it may have the highest of intentions ..and indeed many are carried on the emotional wave of the ideal.

However why is that we are where we are..facing the prospect of a world that humans will not be able to survive in .. due to our own collective action? . Is that not testament enough to the failure of idealism and all rhetoric that does not grasp the essence of our reality .It would seem to me Obama is just talking in the ‘’same old way ”.

Rather than looking to him I would look to Evo Morales in Bolivia as an example or Hugo Chavez .

What your doing by the way is great alex :your not professing to know it all and your trying to engage debate and clarify. this is more than most of us are doing . As long as we can keep talking and moving forward with the same intent ,then differences will sort themselves out.

thanks again for your smart comments. i see where i may have been confusing by inserting “peace” into my airy description of the natural way of life – i agree with you that there is violence in nature, and that we should not idealize nature into a mythological garden of eden.

i also agree strongly with your second post that we shouldn’t engage in idealism in general, but would be better off to base our ideas on the raw facts on the ground. this is what i would like to do on this website.

i’m not going to respond right now about Obama, Morales or Chavez because i’m still trying to figure out how i feel about all 3 of the ones you mentioned. but i WILL post that video on my website, thanks for sharing it, it’s very cool.

i’m going to respond to some of the ideas you brought forward in your first post, in the hope that we can dig deeper into some of these important questions. please don’t feel that i am attacking your ideas – some of what i’m critiquing below is not necessarily what you may believe, john, but just what i felt like responding to.

i think it would clarify the conversation if we try to define “nature”.

if we take the position that humans are natural and therefore anything we do or create must also be natural, we’re stretching the definition of natural to include capitalism… by that logic isn’t global warming “natural”?

this is a danger and i think it flows from the classical Marxist position that somehow society’s evolution is a natural progression, such that capitalism is “better” than what came before, and that capitalism will be replaced by a better society of plenty based on… massive industrial production. i think it’s clear this is a myth because as you point out there are real limits to what the earth can sustain, and if it’s not our goal, we need to figure out an alternative vision of the society we want to create.

another way to define what is “natural” would rely on our knowledge of ecology. for example, one feature of natural ecosystems is that they all tend to have cyclic energy and resources patterns, where everything is recycled and nothing is wasted. the worm turns dung into fertilizer for plants, which are eaten by animals, who leave dung, etc.

in other words, i would argue that SUSTAINABILITY is a necessary feature of all “natural” systems. nature never kills itself, it only evolves. even when one species overshoots its carrying capacity and dies back to a lower population, the ecosystem as a whole continues to adapt and thrive.

only in recent human history has a system developed which has broken this natural cycle and completely ravaged ecosystems to the point of mass extinction.

if we’re not careful we could characterize this extinction as “natural”, or worse, pin the blame on “humanity”, in which case our species is either doomed or evil and there’s no escape from the destruction.

but i take heart from the fact that anthropology has shown that for 99% of human history, we lived AS PART OF the natural cycles – taking only what we needed, taking care of the land, working for our own survival, but also awash with leisure time. not a perfect or idyllic life, but certainly a sustainable one.

anthropology doesn’t have a unified view on these questions, but my reading of people like Marvin Harris tells me that it was only the emergence of the State that radically changed the human experience – not because we WANTED it – by forcing humans to become peasants or laborers tied to agriculture or other technologies, and suffering under taxation that grows the coffers of the rich and militaristic. here’s where the “conquest and pillage” you mentioned comes in.

so in this view, it’s not “humanity” that is destroying the world, but capitalism and the state – the same machines that are impoverishing the huge majority of the world’s population, and destroying human culture.

another word we need to be careful to define is “socialism”. this is a word that means 100 different things to 100 people, and in the US where i live, most of them are bad.

i personally don’t mind the word because i know that most activists who have used that word to describe their ideal have meant a world of freedom and justice, even democracy, which i support.

but there’s also the brutal legacy of “actually existing socialism” in places like “Communist” China or the “Soviet Union” – places that in my opinion resembled something closer to state capitalism in the way workers were treated, or the destruction done to the environment.

but that’s an old argument and not that interesting or relevant to this discussion. i think the more relevant question is, what kind of society are we trying to create? if we’re concerned about global warming or peak oil, how can we work towards a reality that will be both sustainable and free?

i agree wholeheartedly with you that a positive outcome is not inevitable, but also that we DO now have an incredible opportunity to change the world, but the question is – what are we trying to change it to?

The problem in many respect is with language and meaning. language as in words are like bullets with their own course of direction ,and their born of assumptions that we hold but that we,re not really aware of .
This is why philosophy and logic is perhaps the most important subject of all to tackle.
It lays down the fundamental building blocks of meaning and thus communication and action.

One of the problems in a time of crisis is that the intellectual left splits apart because it cant agree,whereas the right often becomes more consolidated as it doesnt so much intellectualise the world ,but consoliates through primitive urge around race and nationhood.

I think there is a danger we,re going to do that all over again if we remain eclectic ie a bit of idealism here .a bit of realism there.
I do however hold to the truism that neccesity is the mother of invention and the size of this collapse will drive the worlds masses to revolt .

What we must do is be clear about what now needs to be supported not as ‘ideal’ in itself but aspart of a bigger process of unification . This is why Chavez and Morales need to be supported.

as for Obama ….nice guy in himself …but what rests heavily on him is this notion of the American dream as in some Jeffersonian wonderland…..that actually never existed .( jefferson had slaves …native americans were massacred…The chinese were disenfranchised .)

More importantly his language is the language of middle America and that is one hell of a confused group . He will most definitely make changes but in so doing he will only bring the system further into crisis …he can’t / wont change it for he believes in its ability to be regenerated.

By the way you are right to mention Russia and China and North Korea. they very much need to be discussed as they are/ were exponents of Stalinism…the most counter revolutionary force that exists that still traumatises and confuses many who would otherwise ”make the change”.

Actually Alex on Obama ..I made a bit of a liberal idealist boob ….what is primary is not so much what he thinks but the forces that are resting on him. Id be interested to know how his support funding breaks down. This is perhaps interesting to read :

”The Washington Post (see below) has looked behind the claims that Obama is creating a new politics with small donors and finds that there are less small donors in 2008 compared to 2004, that Obama is getting big business support and this is the politics of “the usual” not of “change.” ”

endofcapitalism: How is all this different from what the Soviets did? The only difference I can see is private versus public ownership. The USSR was very imperialistic, conquered and exploited the resources of other countries, abused and misused their own environment and resources.

Well I just looked at some of the comments and I guess you addressed that. Still, I don’t think “capitalism” is the problem in and of itself. It’s a myth that capitalism requires growth, it really feeds on it well. But capitalism really just needs opportunity. I don’t buy into the collapse rhetoric of the peak oilers, I think the depletion of oil just opens up all new opportunities. I wouldn’t entirely mind a massive investment of the government in all types of energies, including drilling, but research and support of wind, thermal, nuclear, etc. I think it would be great if we created a glut of energy, then we could more easily decide which ones are better for the environment, etc.

one loophole in what you’re suggesting is the idea that the government serves the needs of the people, or that it has our best interests at heart. i would strongly disagree, and point out the millions of ways that the government is more responsive to large corporations and banks, and how it requires a large social movement to affect government policy.

so, it’s true that we CAN “easily decide” which energy sources are best for the environment and which should be invested in.

the trouble is, who is “we”? if it’s the government, they have already decided to invest in the WORST energy sources – coal, oil, gas, ethanol, tar sands and oil shale, nuclear, etc. meanwhile there has been virtually NO federal money for things like wind or solar because they’re not as PROFITable…

if instead the “we” you refer to is “we, the people”, then i would argue we have every right to oppose these injustices. in fact, i would argue it’s not just our right but our responsibility to do so, given to us by the Declaration of Independence.

“That when a long train of abuses and lies… threatens to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

On the soviet union your absolutely right ,and you can say just as much regards most of them .Take the soviet Union ..largely peasant based and born in an atmosphere of world hostility to it .Also just because some guys may have read a book with Das Capital on the cover doesn,t mean that they don’t carry the contradictions and characteristics of the culture they are attempting to overthrow …. Russians seem to have an affinity for a Tsar of one sort or another .

Socialist transformation in Europe and America will carry its own characteristics which make up who we are in all our diversity.

What socialisation of the economy is really about , is liberating the energy flow of what you and I would want to do/achieve from the dictate of finance that ultimately is only concerned with maximizing profit.
This ‘ maximisation of profit ‘is the architect of social stress ,poverty, polluted environments ,ghost towns ,,youth crime ..you name it .
Liberate money from this constraint and the architecture can take on a whole new reality.

Point 2 …Capitalism is always looking for new opportunities . We have been working more and more …we have more and more ’stuff’…but what actually happened ? All this activity and it bellied up.

The point that your missing is that capitalism actually collapses in on ITself . the more it makes changes ..and works harder …the more it creates a crisis ..because it is governed by internal contradictions which Marx alluded to . These laws..the law of diminishing rate of return , and the ‘insoluble contradiction of capitalism ‘ ..are what E=Mc2 is to matter and energy.

I have actually spoken about these in an earlier post .

The problem is that liberal thinkers in regards to capitalism think of the ‘ immorality ‘..the ‘injustice’ of capitalism and tend to think that all we need to do is tweek it a bit .

This is the logic of Clinton and Blair, Brown and Obama…what they fail to grasp is that this is what helps to collapse it . The paradox though is that they also seek to serve it and look to keep us tied to it ….

In saying they are ‘creating socialism’ they confuse the reality…and the danger is they will now ‘open the door ‘for the extreme right ….which is happening here .

This is precisely what you have to watch out for now in America with Obama.

The one saving grace is that the crash happened under a right wing republican without a strike in sight ( no workers to blame)……but don’t forget people have short memories …..and they will see what they want to see.

What you and others simply do not understand, governments hold the monopoly on violence. Corporations, you don’t have to by their product, with impunity. And, the dollar holds no bias, hate or prejudice, unlike you.

i definitely understand the danger that governments present with their monopoly on violence, scroll up to part 3 on this page and i actually talk about that.

i couldn’t tell if you were trying to defend corporations, or the corporate system more generally, but i think any amount of research will show a million reasons why their effect on society and the planet has been disastrous. here’s the first link that came up when i searched google for “corporate power”: http://www.globalissues.org/article/59/corporate-power-facts-and-stats

disturbing right?

as for curbing that power, if you understand the scope and scale of it, you might be able to appreciate how my individual consumer decisions are negligible. i believe it takes millions of people to change society, that’s why i’m an organizer.

i’m glad you agree that hate and prejudice should be eliminated. i think one way to work towards this is to assume good faith in each other’s intentions. since we apparently have the same motives, let’s work together, not shoot each other down!

The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which an inherent human trait, greed, will do the least harm. In that regard, capitalism has proven to be the best kind of a system to date.

On the road from the City of Skepticism, I had to pass through the Valley of Ambiguity.

thanks for posting adam. living in a capitalist, individualistic society definitely has made people greedy, but this is a defense mechanism that is entirely conditioned, not “inherent” as you say. greed is no more inherent than its opposite, altruism.

humans lived in economies based on altruism and gifts for 99% of our history (some still do), we can do it again.

Capatalism is a cancer that is spreading around the world. It is responsiable for most wars, environmental degridation, and the distruction of nature. It is driven by greed and fueled by consumption. Corporations have the same rights as people in US Courts yet they don’t suffer pain. Corporations must make profits and any costs to the environment, employees, and the population. What CEO can report to his shareholders that the company just sufferd a loss because it cleaned up its environmental mess, or protected our water or air. Only the law restrains the complete unbridled rape of our planet and in most cases it’s cheaper for corporations to fight lawsuits then do what is right. Corporation lobyisits have the ear of the politicians and generally they over rule the will of the people.

My take on the whole problem isn’t so much that capitalism is to blame, as that the key issue is actually industrialization itself. Here is why:
Industrialization is a massive project that has a particular life-cycle which plateaus in terms of growth in its later stages. The driver of the cycle is the satiation of wants and needs. There are infinite wants and needs, but not all wants and needs are of equal importance. We can rank wants/needs in terms of importance. Even though there is no inherent bottleneck on wants/needs, there is a bottleneck in the satiation of them. That is, in order for a want/need to be satiated someone must give up something. Unless of course an alien arrive and hands out the technology for free. In a capitalist system, the person who is getting her want/need satiated must give up a particular number of units of her future production. This is debt financed development. In the Soviet system, the situation was similar, except that the government made the choice for you. The trouble begins (the growth rate of industrialization begins to slow) when the top ranked wants/needs are satiated and we begin to move down the ranked order. For each successive want/needs satiation, our hero is willing to sacrifice less and less of her future production. Why? because the satiation is less and less important to her. This means that the economy will begin to stagnate as demand declines further and further. That is, overproduction will get larger and larger. This is further accelerated by competition amongst firms who develop more and more efficient production. The overproduction means excess labor – unemployment. And given that in the capitalist system the preceding waves of development were debt financed on the basis of future production, the ever growing debt becomes impossible to pay with the more and more worthless production. So the industrialization process has two major problems. Number 1 is the inevitable debt default if the process was financed with debt. Number 2 is the inevitable social instability of mass unemployment, which happens regardless of what method of industrialization was used.

A society has some options to deal with the problems of industrialization. If they face both the debt and unemployment problem together, then they must find other nations who they can export their industrialization technology to using debt finance. Effectively continuing the problem with another group of people, who in the end will default and face unemployment as well.
If a society only faces the unemployment problem, then it has to only worry about keeping people employed through less productive work. Through taxation and excessive regulation, the government can slow down the production of the system and thus remove the excess production. However, the regulation tends to become so burdensome that innovation is completely mitigated.
If a society only faces the unemployment problem, there is a third option and that is to idle production by cutting the work week. Reduce hours worked and subsequently incomes. This solution has a few wrinkles. One is that anyone who has debt under the old work week (say a house mortgage) is no longer able to pay it off. Conversely, workers under the new work week will never be able to attain the same absolute level of wealth that folks did under the prior model and so huge structural wealth inequalities will need to be dealt with via taxation of assets.

This is my first visit. I read your manuscript but was midly questioning some of your arguments. I am not as articulate as you or John, nor as able to pull together what I have read and studied into a coherent whole as both of you. So, bottom line, if there exists more of that discussion would you please email the content? I found the exchange very helpful.

Great site. The world deserately needs to pull its collective head out of the sand and take a look around at the society we have come to accept. SO many things are wrong with the way we live and yet people are totally unaware of the issues surrounding us. The environment, social values, children, greed, war, food, Media the list goes on. We need to be aware and start to change the world.

I think that this may be the end of capitalism. However, it does not have to be bad, nor does everyone have to abandon everything or every technology they loved in the 20th century, either. I predict that many of the same luxuries can exist in the 21st century on a smaller scale, including video games, cars, travelling, getting to see friends that live far away, the internet, machines, etc. I do think we will have to make sacrifices as the result of the new energy economy. I also don’t think that creating a police state is the right idea, either.

I think if we can make these changes, we could cut our consumption of resources by 30% or more within a decade:

1) Abandon the “corporate profits at all costs” economic model ASAP

2) Allow individuals to take back the rights to inventions and creations into their own hands instead of mandatory corporate ownership.

3) Work to free land from debt trap liens. This would allow people to rework the landscape faster. Additionally, change the social rules so that one does not lose their property or belongings every time there is a job loss or economic recession. Max Rameau in Florida I think had the right first steps by moving homeless people into foreclosed homes without the lenders permission.

4) Work to relocate farms within cities. Rework suburbia by building permaculture gardens and bulldoze some foreclosed homes and planting gardens on them. Eat what is in season.

5) Rethink the idea that every person needs a car and will commute every day to a 9-5 job. If we eliminated rush hour commutes through the use of paying by productivity instead of hours worked, allowing people to work at home or within walking distance from home, and extended public transit to suburbia (perhaps by simply adding bus stops at your nearest park or nearest school with a connection to a trolley line or mass transit train lines) would eliminate about half of the gasoline consumption in the USA and most of the traffic jams.

6) Tax gasoline at european rates in the USA. If the price of gas was over $7.00 per gallon or more, this would discourage unnessecary driving.

7) Encourage people to fix things instead of the “throw away economy”. I would do this for machinery, computers, electronics, mechanical equipment. I remember the days in which one would simply take their TV to the repair shop and have it fixed for far cheaper than a new TV.

8) Tax minerals and metals that are in short supply heavily.

9) Revive local arts, theatre, dance, cultural, recreational sports, exercise, and the like again. This will allow one to have fun a lot more than today.

10) Discourage political decisions designed to foster big box retailers and mass scale marketing. Instead, work to revive small towns where shops, restaurants, dance halls, and other businesses are locally owned by people in that community again.

11) Tax pesticides heavilly and make organic food cheaper to produce

12) Institute a “one child” policy to reduce population growth with exceptions for if a patient has twins or more born at the same moment in time.

13) Develop alternative fuels and renewable power schemes and challenge researchers to work on new ways of harnessing energy

14) Put long lost electives back into school like fashion design, sewing, home economics, shop, repair of items, agriculture, art, music, drama, PE, health, etc. This will help prepare kids for the localized economy again. Repeal testing mandates like No Child Left Behind.

15) Repeal liability laws so that people can do a lot more on their own again without fear of a lawsuit.

16) Revive social etiquette and reverse the “Generation Me” epidemic

17) Encourage hand made goods again

18) Use Biofuels for critical services and for aviation (allow people to still visit distant family for vacations) instead of trying to run a vehicle fleet on it.

19) Revive our railroad system and encourage the construction of mass transit projects.

thanks so much for your excellent comment and 20 points. i think you’ve got a great understanding of the energy predicament, and if we followed these suggestions the world would be a lot better off!

i just want to highlight one thing you said:

3) Work to free land from debt trap liens. This would allow people to rework the landscape faster. Additionally, change the social rules so that one does not lose their property or belongings every time there is a job loss or economic recession. Max Rameau in Florida I think had the right first steps by moving homeless people into foreclosed homes without the lenders permission.

this is right on, but i think it could even be extended to include a total debt “jubilee”, meaning forgiveness of debt. most Americans are drowning under debt: credit card, mortgage, student loans, health care, etc etc.. it’s a disaster and this debt will never be paid off, especially with a sinking economy. a debt jubilee will help folks to quit the rat race and start doing meaningful work, like turning our cities and suburbs into gardens.

Arguing that America could become a fascists state is one of the most ridiculous claims I have heard in quite a while. One thing that has been constant since the beginning of this country, is that Americans distrust the government. A country so deeply seated in distrusting its government would more quickly turn to anarchy than it would fascism.

Also, fascism does not appeal to those who are wealthy. Fascists believe that corporations should be controlled by the government (the corporate state). This would mean that the government would control the wealth of the wealthy. It must be stated that although fascists are seen as right wing their economic policies are not those supported by the right wing or the left wing in this country.

With the right social regulations capitalism can still thrive. Adding in environmental costs onto carbon emissions and similar measures will allow capitalism to approach its real world cost (the cost to our earth and our health). I work in a research laboratory on solar energy, and I firmly believe that with the incentives provided by capitalism and admittedly some government regulation people will make their way out of this and many more crisis as they have in the past.

The Marshall Plan (a plan that promoted growth in standard of living through promotion of business) is historic proof that capitalism can be a force for good. If a similar system were enacted in Africa rather than giving aid to corrupt African governments, it is likely that you would see a substantial rise in quality of life along with the economy.

Oil is by no means the lifeblood of capitalism. There was capitalism before oil was useful and there will be capitalism after oil is too expensive to be useful.

Lastly, I would like to argue that your definition of “natural” humans is completely against most political philosophy regarding this well covered subject. It is only by capturing the true essence of human nature that a political and economic system thrive. Capitalism captures the competitive nature of humans in a way no other system can. I hope some of this can convince you that capitalism is not as evil as it seems or if you’d like to look at it in a different way not as evil as the alternatives.

first, one way to understand why fascism appeals to the wealthy is to take a look at the $700 billion bank bailout that was rammed through Congress last year. we were told the economy would “collapse” if Congress failed to turn over the Treasury to large, private banks so that the richest 1% of Americans wouldn’t lose money from their terrible and probably criminal investment schemes. some Congressmen have said that they were threatened with “martial law” if they did not pass the bill. in other words, the way the corporate state works is not to “control” the funds of the wealthy, but to protect them at everyone else’s expense.

these fear-tactics and the silencing of democratic debate have facilitated other horrible decisions too, like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. remember, the large industrialists and bankers supported Hitler as an alternative to left-wing popular movements in Germany, and it can definitely happen here.

the Marshall Plan as an example of capitalism? that’s funny, i’ve always thought of massive government intervention in the economy and support for a unionized workforce as something else. Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine does a great job explaining how social democratic policies like the New Deal, Marshall Plan, etc., have been wittled away and replaced with the opposite, cutting social services and attacking labor and environmental laws. this is the face of capitalism today, which i think helps explain your Africa quandary. seriously, check out that book, it’s revelatory.

about oil, try picturing the global economy without oil. i don’t think it’s very easy. in fact, it’s impossible.

finally, it’s fine if you believe capitalism can be reformed, and i agree with you that carbon taxes and stricter regulations would be wonderful. the trouble i see is that capitalists (giant corporations in today’s world) tend to be violently opposed to exactly these kinds of reforms, because they have the profit-motive to be concerned about. and unfortunately these forces control our corrupt, do-nothing government as well.

more fundamentally though, the issue is about growth, and capitalism’s dependence on it. can we really afford an economy that sucks greater and greater people and resources into it and spits out poverty and ecological catastrophe? i don’t think so!

Wow, I admire your passion for something that you believe in….however, I am diametrically opposed to your misguided conclusion on what you believe capitalism represents. I read your bio and understand why you would have come to these passionate representations of your thoughts on capitalism based upon painful experiences.

Alex, Capitalism is simply a representation of the natural existence of human interactions. Do you believe that human beings possess the concept of free will? Isn’t free will simply a natural progression from the capacity to think?

Because human beings possess free will, which we do….and no one will deny this fact, we will always choose actions that we percieve to be in our best interests. Capitalism is simply a reflection of this observation. Capitalism allows people in an organized society to choose most freely the actions that they feel best effect their interests. People will exert their free will in any societal form….capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, progressivism, etc. This will never change. When given too many restraints people will rise up and revolt. Look at history.

I realize that you don’t believe that this freedom is the problem. You surely realize that this freedom is innate in human beings, right? Every form of society will always move in a cycle whereby its axis is centered in the direction of freedom. Why do you think so many immigrants came from oppressive societies in europe to the United States during the 19th and 20th century? Was this an accident? Did they just happen to get on a boat then accidentally ended up in America? This is an example of the natural law of free will.

I understand that you think business and industry is also the problem, but why? Business in a free market is the purest form of interaction possible. Each party is completely consentually to an exchange of value, each party has a right to refuse this exchange or look for a better exchange. If you argue that industry is going to destroy our world through the pollution of the environment, do you then surmise that we should stop all production, all industry, all business? Yes, sure there are instances of industry leading to excessive pollution….this has nothing to do with capitalism. The people who chose profits with no regard for the future were simly irresponsible.

How can you possibly make the connection that the tragic events you detail in your bio were CAUSED by capitalism? That deduction is simply flawed. Capitalism had nothing to do with the irresponsible executives that ran that corporation which produced the asbestos problem. Are you to argue that in a socialist structure that this type of problem could not occur? If you think that capitalism was the problem to this event, then you are also inferring that you have “some system” whereby you could have controlled this event and so the actions of those executives would have never taken place.

Why don’t you want people to have ownership? Capitalism is also based on the recognition of individual ownership of “capital”, i.e. property, homes, retirment accounts, businesses, etc. Capitalism recognizes each individual’s right to own “capital”. The only other alternative is a system that does not recognize this right……where the State or the Government dictates peoples belongings and who gets what. Your blog is a a small representation of ownership, which is created through….you guessed it, capitalism. Do you want to give up the right to own “capital”?

A free market society produces the type of quality of life that you are so accustomed to and the freedom for you to actually have this blog. How do you not see that? Please produce ONE example of a society where socialism, communism, or whatever other terminology you want to phrase any other form of government (progressivism? social justice-ism?). ONE?

Finally your contention that capitalism is based on constant growth is just simply not sound. Capitalism and Constant Growth have nothing to do with each other. I don’t even know what you are talking about here? Your efforts in the ending of capitalism are synonomous of your belief that free will can be controlled, ownership of capital can be taken away by the state, the destruction of producing business…. which provides all of us the quality of life the we so much love. Do you even understand that these are your beliefs?

thanks a lot for posting. it makes me happy that you’re asking these kinds of questions and wanting to engage with opinions that are different than your own!

a few things that spring to mind… first, i absolutely believe in freedom and support it to the FULLEST manifestation, NOT the limited and fraudulent freedom we have in the United States and the capitalist world today.

the idea that capitalism is compatible with freedom, or democracy for that matter, is actually part of an enormous Propaganda scheme that has been taught by the media, politicians, and universities for a long time. but it doesn’t hold up to the light of scrutiny.

for example, how can we talk about freedom in a system depriving over a BILLION people access to clean water, or adequate food? please understand that these people were not starving before capitalism arrived on their shores. remember how Columbus massacred the “Indians” he encountered? that saga was repeated across all of America and most of the world in the wake of capitalist expansion from the 15th – 19th centuries, and continues in a different form today. to find out about freedom, we should ask the Peruvian indios who today are committing civil disobedience to keep mining companies out of their Amazon homes! don’t ask the mining executives about freedom, the only freedom they see is the freedom to profit.

if you need an example closer to home, think about yourself. are you really free? free to blog, maybe, and to decide between coke and pepsi. but is that all freedom really means anymore? what about the freedom from want, as in the freedom to health care, the freedom to housing, to education? all of these are not free, they are restricted according to who can afford them in our society. try to take them without money and you will discover the reality of freedom in America: the freedom to rot in a jail cell.

i also think you are confused by the term capital. capital is not a blog. capital is the ownership of the “means of production”, like factories, land, and finances. the term typically refers to the large corporations and banks which control our economy. Exxon-Mobil, or Wal-Mart, for examples, are capital. somebody running a Farmer’s Market is not capital. on the contrary, that’s the REAL free market: small, locally-owned family and community businesses. and that’s what we need more of, because the economy of the future will be local and sustainable, or it won’t be at all. the planet can’t sustain Exxons and Wal-Marts much longer.

you say that “The people who chose profits with no regard for the future were simly irresponsible.”

this is true, but you must try to understand that this kind of behavior is DEMANDED by the capitalist system. profit-seeking, greed, irresponsibility are the ONLY characteristics that capitalism demands of businessmen and women. anything else is just window-dressing as far as they are concerned.

i’m not the kind of person who would point to governments as alternatives to capitalism. i’m not particularly interested in the state taking over the economy, just providing basic necessities like housing, employment, food, and health care for those who can’t meet these needs themselves in their communities. again, the economy i believe we need (and are creating) is decentralized, local, small-scale, and community-centered. for examples of this see your local farmer’s market, or on a larger scale maybe check out the Mondragon cooperatives of Spain, or the Zapatistas of Mexico.

Not just oil, but cheap oil is the lifeblood of capitalism and the main drag for new ideas, responsible development, meaningful participation, sustainable conduct and operation, real innovation and technology, an entrepreneural spirit, the rule of law and a just democratic process, all causing the structural and pandemic parliamentary deficit.

I would be interested to hear why you believe that the Government should be responsible for “just providing basic necessities like housing, employment, food and health care for those that can’t meet these needs themselves in their communities”.

The United States of America was not founded on these principles of having the Government distribute handouts. I will say that their are Gov’t programs that are important and very helpful (Unemployment…etc..) but the problem is when people attach themselves to the systems and suck them for all they can.

If I fail to provide adequate housing for my family, or fail to get a job, or fail to put food on my table, or fail to provide my family with Health Care….do you know who’s fault that is? It’s mine. It’s all my fault.

If the United States of America became this utopia that you envision…why should anyone have the drive to be successful if there is a ceiling to their success?

I am sorry that you don’t appreciate the United States of America. We are free in America….100% completely free? No. Completely freedom means having no rules, no laws, no accountability. Yes, I agree that our freedoms are deteriorating however, if what you are proposing is to come true…isn’t that reducing our freedoms even more?

sw

I know you didn’t post about this but i am also having a hard time understanding what “Institute a “one child” policy to reduce population growth with exceptions for if a patient has twins or more born at the same moment in time.” has to do with this discussion.
—–Institutionalized children limits?? That certainly doesn’t sound like freedom.

Society, not necessarily government, should guarantee its members life. Its a very basic concept and fundamental concept that while the individual has a responsibility to be a productive member of society that society as a whole has a responsibility to provide fundamental guarantees to life. The culture of capitalism has instituted an acute individualism. One that no longer recognizes and is even hostile to social egalitarianism. If I fail to provide a roof for my family for what ever reason am I the lonely person who suffers? Absolutely not. My children, who have no choice in who their parents are, are assed out. And when they start robbing people, most likely, it will be the neighbor who thinks this is not his problem. This isn’t to say that they are doomed to poverty. A few children are capable of overcoming their hardships and do break the cycle of poverty, but these are extraordinary people with extraordinary fortitude. Why do some children have to be extraordinary to achieve success while those born to richer families get an easier ride? Aren’t all children, a priori, to be offered the same starting point? We shouldn’t single out just needy families for government funding, but all should be afforded the very basic rights to life; food, housing, healthcare, education and in today’s world, transportation. Some of these should just be provided in basic form like food and housing. You must still work for the steak and extra bathrooms, but healthcare and education should be provided to all at the same, the best, quality.
Obviously the current economic system cannot, under any conditions, provide for such a program. In our individualistic economic system those that have hate to be taxed. This is understandable. But capitalism is in no way providing social justice. The idea that the harder you work the more you make is acceptable to me as far as providing for social justice. Most people think that this describes capitalism, but it doesn’t. That misconception comes from a couple hundred years of elitist propaganda. If you sit and think honestly about it you will find many instances where this has failed to be true. Capitalism is not social justice.
Life as social beings with an individual ego creates a social dynamic that we must rediscover. It’s not all my fault and it’s not all societies fault. Humanity will never be healthy until we as a whole restore the balance that has been lost. It’s not a utopian dream either. There will certainly will arise new problems, but we will never get to those new problems if we don’t start owning up to our failings and mistakes in the here and now. Let’s take responsibility a realize that just looking out for number one is not moral nor is it just. This isn’t just a problem for the poor people or nations, it directly affects all of us and this is the fundamental truth of society. This is why you should care and help affect change.

I must add a point to my argument that I neglected at the beginning. Capitalism does not guarantee life. There is no right to life under capitalism. Things that are necessities for life are commodities and therefore must be paid for hence not guaranteed.

thanks for following up with me. your curiosity and conviction are admirable.

i’ve never heard of any healthy family or community in the world that actively denies basic necessities to its members, like food, shelter, education… why should we allow this treatment from our government and our economic system?

i think it’s an absolute disgrace that the richest 1% of Americans control trillions of dollars and drive around in HUMMER limousines, while billions of poverty-stricken individuals die of easily preventable disease, hunger, and war. i don’t believe this is morally justifiable, and all the major religions agree with me. what was it that Jesus said? that “we will be judged by how we treat the least among us”? if people are starving, homeless, in need of basic medical care, why would you deny them these things? of course you wouldn’t, but our government does. and it’s no accident, it’s neglect by design.

i know that the theories you’re echoing are taught to us in Econ 101 and most every other class growing up, as well as promoted by the corporate media and politicians… but that doesn’t make them right. to me, blaming poor people for being poor is like blaming women for being raped. it’s vicious and irresponsible.

at this very moment the US capitalist economy is throwing 200,000 people out of work every month. do you honestly believe that these masses of people are all just lazy? is it THEIR fault? or can it be that the ruling elite who own the companies and the stocks, buy the airwaves, and control the politicians, are in some small way responsible for this mess? especially since they’re the ones who invented credit default swaps and gutted the financial regulations to begin with?

i realize it’s difficult to swallow these truths, especially when you’re hearing them from some random stranger on a blog comment. to investigate further into the justice/injustice of our current economic system, i would highly recommend Michael Moore’s new film Capitalism: A Love Story. and since books always have more information than films, you should also check out “Nickel and Dimed” by Barbara Ehrenreich.

200,000 people may be losing their jobs in “this capitalist system”, but isn’t it the same system that gave them the jobs in the first place. The same system that allows them communicate with people all of the world, enjoy products from all over the world, go sleep at night with a roof over their head knowing there will be food on the table tomorrow, among many other things.

I agree that much more should be done for the poor, but we are a long way of being able to do so. The best solutions being thrown on the table are crap at best.

The world is a much better place because of capitalism. The faults of capitalism are numerous but it is naive to ignore the benefits because you benefit everyday from it.

thanks for posting. i’m sorry we seem to have a disagreement about the nature of capitalism. you mention how you’ve been lucky enough to have food, shelter, a variety of consumer products, and the opportunity to communicate with people all over the world. i’m glad for you. i’ve had those advantages too. but capitalism didn’t provide any of it. my family did, and i did through my hard work. and i think everyone should have these basic needs met, and have the security to not worry about them being gone tomorrow. you don’t need capitalism to provide these, you just need an economy that responds to people’s needs.

but capitalism is causing poverty throughout the world and forcing people into positions of INsecurity, having to search desperately for jobs and wages whereas they could previously provide for themselves through their families and communities, and land. look at Haiti, with a 70% unemployment rate, and people eating MUD in order to not feel their starvation. so you see that for everyone made wealthy and affluent, more are made poor and hungry somewhere else.

on a more personal note, because capitalism has enriched the coffers of enormous insurance companies who profit from people being sick, i can’t afford health insurance. now these same corporate crooks are lobbying our government with millions of our dollars in order to prevent a public health care option which would drive down costs and provide basic coverage for poor and working Americans, including myself.

here again what i see is a system that rewards greed and cruelty, at the expense of basic human need. i see a system that profits from taking away people’s security.

Capitalism was indeed a successful project. Let’s keep in mind though exactly what that project was. The industrialization of the top economies. No other economic system would likely have provided this end. The profit motive was an excellent motivator for economic investment. I believe we owe a lot to the legacy of capitalism from a strictly utilitarian point of view. However, industrialization is over. The market is over saturated in most areas with no place for the investment capital to go except into capital risk ventures. Capital can no longer be reinvested into production as it was historically. This is of course a generalization but nevertheless the overwhelming truth. The point is that capitalism has served it’s necessary function. All this is about people not wanting to let go of what worked in the past and move on. The economy has provided for us technologically through the capitalistic system. Now we must move to the next phase of social need and that is currently social justice. Just like feudalism was replaced by capitalism in response to societies needs so must capitalism now move over in response to societies needs. Historically the current system never gave up peacefully and that’s a social phenomenon where the people as a whole are reluctant to change what they see as very foundation of their world. But the uncomfortable truth is we must think progressively in order to progress.

The hard work of your family and others was done in a system where the aggregate efforts create positive growth for us all through security, goods, services, etc. That is what capitalism is. You don’t have to have capitalism to provide for people’s needs, but capitalism is the best system that we have at this point.

To your second point, elaborate on “causing poverty if you can.” Capitalism has been the driving force of the West who now lives in prosperity. It was the driving force of the “Asian Tigers” who through the green revolution brought a billion plus people out of poverty. There is still a billion plus in poverty, but they have always been in poverty. The 70% unemployment you stated includes underemployment which is different but widespread all throughout Latin America. Haiti is an island, so with population growth the old ways of doing things are not always going to work. This is actually exactly how the capitalistic society came to be in Britain. Land constraints caused people to move to cities and through innovation became an industrial class.

Health care is an issue with a myriad of things going on. An aging demographic, our legal structure, our advanced technological capabilities, and our terrible health habits as a population all are contributing to increasing health costs. You cannot lower health care costs by having a public option. A public option just changes who pays for the services, which introduces another laundry list of problems. Health care reform should happen but having a public option creates more problems and doesn’t necessarily solve much.

let’s start with concrete reality and then see if our theories match up with it.

on health care, keep in mind that i (we?) live in the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in the history of the entire world. yet, we have 50,000,000 (million) people who do not have even basic medical care. i am one of them, meaning if i get sick or have an accident, i cant go to a doctor. that’s a situation that is morally unjustifiable. if creating a public health care option gives me an opportunity to maybe get coverage i can afford, do you think i’m going to be against that? it’s common sense, which is why a poll released yesterday showed 57% of Americans support the public option. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

if i lived in ANY other industrialized nation, we wouldn’t even be having this problem at all, because health care is provided by a single payer system in every country from Australia to Japan to the UK to Germany, etc. you get sick, you see a doctor, period. we need to get rid of the parasitic health care industry which profits from people getting sick, and create a Medicare for All type system here, to keep up with the rest of the world.

next, i don’t think it’s fair to just look at the wealthiest countries and say “capitalism works.” you also have to look at the negative. i pointed out the poverty of a place like Haiti, which is just as much a part of the capitalist system. your error seems to be assuming that these people somehow were magically poor before capitalism ever threw them off their land and into the global workforce. in fact, it’s responsible for their poverty.

since you brought up early-capitalist England, let’s look at it for real. you say, “Land constraints caused people to move to cities and through innovation became an industrial class.” but this completely leaves out the violence that was necessary to drive people off their land and into the urban factory slums. this violence was perpetuated by the State under the banner of the “Enclosures,” whereby small farmers, herders, and public land, were eliminated through repression and war to make way for large private holdings. in short, the poor got expelled to make way for the rich. the only place to go then, was the urban slum, where people had to sell their lives away for pathetic wages. their only other options were to become vagabonds who wandered the countryside, or to starve. people settled for the least-bad option – toiling in horrible polluted factories and barely scraping by. it was only after the spoils from colonizing the New World (through slavery and genocide) started to be shared with the home population in the 19th century, as a result of the industrial union movement, that working conditions improved. that’s a short summary of what happened. that history should really be taught in school instead of hiding it.

i highly recommend the excellent book ‘Caliban and the Witch’ by Silvia Federici for much more detail about the development of capitalism in Europe, and how it related not only to forcibly removing “peasants” from their lands, but also to heightened State control of everyday life, and the increased oppression of women through the Great Witch Hunts.

now let’s return to theory. can we actually say that this system provides “security” for all? or is it only for the rich?

Why not stop talking the people have a right to all our resources without having to beg borrow and fucking steel when are we all going to wake the fuck up and see that any government is going to have greed as long as its run by human beings we are descusting greedy creatures and as long as we put a select few on top who are only interested in self preservation things will never change .We are stuck ,stuck working for the rich as their modern day slaves we kill ourselves for so little then we are forced to give most of our so little to the ppl who have it all i say fuck them and fuck everyone who jus sits there complaining when will we fucking wake up and see that everything already belongs to everyone we the ppl will need to stand together and put an end to what we have let them do we need to tear down the walls of our social prisons to bring about equality love peace WAKE THE FUCK UP

thanks for posting chris. i share your frustrations, but remember that its the system we live in that makes people disgusting and greedy! when we do away with it, we can support the “equality love peace” that we need.

“but remember that its the system we live in that makes people disgusting and greedy!”

I’m not completely sure I’m with you on this one. I think the reason capitalism as worked so “well” is because it found a way to harness greed.

I do agree with you on almost all other points though. I do however have to agree with Chris…and it scares me to think this way. I simply don’t see change without a massive civil war. The rich will never just walk away and the government will never support the poor. I’m honestly worried that in my lifetime (I’m 36) we are going to be faced with a situation were the people of the USA have to rise up and fight for real freedom again…one problem. about 50% of the people in this country will fight for a greed based system. They don’t care if people are starving in Africa as long as they have food. They don’t care if China comes to a skreetching halt because they can’t afford oil as long as the key still starts their hummer.

I’ve tried and tried to take a positive outlook about this all, but I’m simply convinced that we are running right off the edge of the cliff. Peak oil is here. The worlds financial markets are catering. War is imminent amongst the rich nations as we fight for resources. The USA has already positioned all it’s pawn in the middle east.

Sadly I think the rich would rather destroy the planet than share….and yes they do have the ability to completely and utterly destroy this planet so you don’t get your fancy health care.

BTW by world statistics I’m considered rich making just under 100K a year. I’d gladly trade my job/title/wealth for a better world. I assure you I’m in the vast minority of “rich” people….and no obviously I’m not one of the elite rich…nor could I ever be.

i think your concerns are legitimate and commonly held. there is every reason to be skeptical of the ruling class. they have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in the welfare of humanity or of the planet. and as Naomi Klein’s brilliant book “The Shock Doctrine” explained, they often use crises to push through unpopular and destructive austerity measures.

however, i take inspiration from the millions of people who fight everyday for a better world, and those who have been doing so for as long as oppression has existed in this world. (about 10,000 years in my reading of history)

every time the rich and powerful have acted out of greed and sadism, there have been those who have opposed them by relying on solidarity, cooperation and empathy.

for a historical example of people fighting for justice and making great strides in creating a new kind of society, check out Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, 1936. George Orwell wrote a great firsthand account called “Homage to Catalonia”. the fascists did win in the end, but this was by no means an inevitable outcome.

more contemporary examples are all around us, as people work together for a better future than what we can expect handed down to us from above. i often refer to this huge mass of people, however decentralized and disorganized, as “the movement.” i do believe social movements are our only hope, but they are a REAL hope, that i aim to make more visible through my writing.

right now i’ve been inspired by the students in the University of California system, who have protested, marched and occupied their buildings to prevent an absurd 32% rise in tuition. this Thursday, March 4, will be a National Day of Action to Defend Education from further budget cuts: http://www.defendeducation.org/

as someone with an above-average income, it’s up to you to decide how you will support the development of justice in this country. one way might be to donate money to groups who are doing good work, like the ones i listed. but ultimately i think your own liberation as an individual will only come through active participation and working side-by-side with people who are committed to making this world a better place.

i know that was the case for me. i used to be a depressed, unhappy engineering student. now i am living my life for social change, and life has never been better for me. :)

The 50 million you stated who do not have health care includes illegal immigrants (which is a different subject) and the real total of people without health care is around 30 million. Many people support the public option but 80% of people like the plans they currently have, so why change it… A public option directly affects you, so you should be for it. My view comes from the good of the whole country. Over 2 billion people in the world don’t have minimal health care so the claim that not having a public option is morally unjustifiable is weak. Many things provided by government run health care is not provided. We all have heard of people coming to the United States to receive the best health care available, because we have it! And medical migration is not just for the rich. Like I said before, nearly ever great medical advance comes from the United States, and a public option greatly hinders that.

Haiti was victim of a mercantilist and feudal society where value was only thought to be in commodities. That society failed miserably and Haiti has had to suffer from it. When Haiti revolted from the French they severed their ties with Europe and years of dictatorship followed. Today there is much evidence of a capitalistic society but it lacks the entire supportive infrastructure that capitalism in the modern world has. Saying Haiti is solely a victim of capitalism is a misguided surface level argument. Much of Latin America is a similar story. The Spanish were incredibly inept colonizers because their ideology (which was not capitalistic) caused them to pillage for commodities because commodities were the only thing that they thought held value. These feudal structures are still very much intact and contribute greatly to the worst inequality in the world. Capitalism in this setting will never yield the results it has in the West.
Let’s not forget that Haiti is a country of 6 million in a world of 6 billion. The economic development in East Asia has brought hundreds of millions out of poverty because capitalism has been able to take root in an environment that is suited to handle it.

You bring up that conditions in early-capitalist England were terrible. I agree. In fact I believe they were far worse than the conditions we see today, and this was not just in England. Nearly every has gone through periods where conditions were extremely difficult. Conditions were horrific in England in early-capitlist times, but how is England now? The United States? Europe? East Asia is far better now even conditions are still very tough. Latin America with all the issues there, is still better off now than before capitalism.

Prosperity does not come easy, and there is no reason for us to think that it should. Cities all around the world are exploding in population because only in the cities is there hope for progress. People don’t end up in cities by chance. They move to cities through rational decision making. I spent a summer working with small businesses in Lima, Peru. Almost no one (among the poor) were born in Lima, but everyone moved because they know of the hardships of rural life. Urban life is miserable, but the point is that it is better than rural life. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t be moving to cities in masses.

Sorry for the ramble but my main point is that nothing has brought masses of people to prosperity like capitalism has. I believe our direction should be to understand the reasons why capitalism has not taken root is certain places and to figure out how we can build the proper infrastructure to allow virtuous cycles of capitalism to take hold.

I can sense that you are well-meaning and actually think poverty is a problem that should be addressed, which is great!

Unfortunately we seem to have a basic disagreement about the nature of capitalism and how it actually creates poverty, rather than solving it. I just wrote a review of a book that reveals much about the origins of capitalism in Europe. Silvia Federici writes about how the Witch Hunt was a necessary component in breaking the enormous medieval poor people’s movements to make way for capitalism. In the process, at least 100,000 women were burnt alive as “witches.” I would suggest you read the article and get back to me on the subject. It’s here: https://endofcapitalism.com/2009/11/05/who-were-the-witches-patriarchal-terror-and-the-creation-of-capitalism/

This is the real history of our capitalist system. And it is MY history as someone descended from Europeans. The trouble is that we in the US have all been the victims of a massive dis-information campaign, by those in power, that has hidden this information from us. The most important thing the elites have hidden, in fact, is themselves. I may have told you this before, but the richest 1% of Americans has the same wealth as the bottom 95%. Think about that. It’s this same 1% who own the banks, the media, and the politicians. They’re the reason we can’t get decent health care, or any kind of meaningful action on climate change, or an end to futile and destructive wars in the Middle East.

There is a whole system of myth propagated by those who control our society, which says that capitalism creates wealth, and that businesses when left to themselves will lead to the benefit of all, through the ‘invisible hand.’ But we need to begin to understand the reality of wealth, that it is not only having “lots of stuff”, but having strong communities, a healthy planet, while meeting people’s basic economic needs. The next book I am going to review deals a lot with this question of what is real wealth, the book is “The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community” by David Korten. Look out for my review! also check out Yes! Magazine, http://yesmagazine.org which Korten edits, it’s one of the best newsmagazines around!

It sounds like much of our disagreement about poverty stems from how the world was before capitalism. From the article on witches and other things you have sited start with oppression beginning and worsening as capitalism starts. I would highly disagree that the world before capitalism was any better but there the beginning of most literature on the subject begins around the time of capitalism because invention and creation of wealth.

If you want to debate the quality of life hundreds of years ago that is fine, but where I adamantly disagree with you is the freedom and expression that people have now as a result of capitalism. Today, we can express our opinion in public or private without fear of repression, we can pursue education, we have rule of law, our property is secure, freedom of religion, health care (even though may not be universal) is far better than it was before capitalism.

I do not know about the quality of life before capitalism because I was not there, but I do know that the freedoms we experience today, at least degree we experience them today.

The richest 1% of Americans have the same wealth at the bottom 95%. But if the poor are getting richer, does it matter how rich the rich are? Income inequality clearly exists, but the US is far less unequal than most countries. Spend some time in Latin America where the wealthy live like Americans but the poor are freezing and starving at night. And the poor in these countries (living on less than $2 a day) is often upwards of 30%.

I started to work on what is coming after capitalism before you were born. I found that a good and sane society we are all looking for requires complete change of everything we are used today and that is not easy to accomplish. Here is what is going to replace capitalism: http://www.sarovic.com/end_of_capitalism.htm . This is most likely the future of humankind.

thanks for posting and for thinking about what should replace capitalism!

i found your ideas enjoyable and thought-provoking. my concern is that the reforms you suggest cannot occur unless we also grapple with the reality of power in our capitalist society. namely that there are powerful, elite forces which seek to preserve their disproportionate influence and wealth.

it seems to me the only way to overcome those obstacles is through a large, bottom-up movement for change. it’s in formation but needs more support. theory is one way to support, but action is also needed!

thanks for responding again. i agree with a lot of what you value. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, free education, free health care, etc. are the building blocks of a good society.

but there are many nations which provide these things far better than the US does, and it’s usually because they restrain capitalism from interfering with them! for example Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and many more do a better job of providing health care and education.

as for freedom of expression, the repression Americans face for trying to express our freedom is actually quite severe. and if you haven’t been to a protest where you’ve experienced the tear gas, pepper spray, batons, rubber bullets, sonic cannons, etc. that are used to stifle dissent, then i don’t think you’ve really tested the “freedom of expression” theory. my friend recently got tackled, beaten, and charged with felonies just for walking in Pittsburgh during the G20 protests. hadn’t done anything. and he wasn’t alone, hundreds were arrested for simply being in the area. see this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etv8YEqaWgA&feature=player_embedded

another thing i wanted to respond to was your statement about how rough it is in Latin America and the Global South. i completely agree, it’s an absolute humanitarian disaster. but we must understand WHY these people are being made poor – there is a system at work, which is exploiting their resources and labor for the profit of multinational corporations and wealthy nations.

this plays out through “Structural Adjustment” policies which drive poor nations into debt, then demand that they privatize and de-regulate their economies. the debt usually never gets paid off though, and it turns into an enormous funnel of wealth OUT of the poor nations and into the hands of the global elite.

a story of Democracy Now! this morning talked about this exact topic while previewing the upcoming film The End of Poverty.

Susan George talked about debt repayment: “Sub-Saharan Africa, which is the poorest part of the world, is paying $25,000 every minute to Northern creditors. Well, you could build a lot of schools, a lot of hospitals, a lot of job—you could make a lot of job creation, if you were using $25,000 a minute differently from debt repayment. So there’s this drain.

this is why it’s necessary to explore the history of our current system. because without understanding how this situation developed, we’re not going to be able to adequately solve the problems we face. my research indicates that capitalism as a system requires the growing inequality between rich and poor. so if we want to stop poverty, we HAVE to stop capitalism.

According to your statistics the United States must be a terrible place to live in but most Americans would strongly disagree. I don’t believe those statistics are wrong, but I do believe that you cannot simply explain differences through single rankings on very complex issues. Basic logic supports this argument because the United States is a great place to live in, although some do disagree with that.

The biggest problem I have with your statements is that you attribute nothing to capitalism. It is fine with me to talk about the faults of capitalism but you must be able to understand its merits to realize what is going on. All those countries with “better” health care, education, income equity, etc. have all built their economies on capitalistic principles. This foundation has allowed them to support universal health care and other such initiatives.

I don’t know whether you have spent anytime in third world countries or not, but I urge you to do so. I have worked with micro businesses in the informal economy and it is a much different picture than you are describing. The majority of the poor are far out of reach from multinational corporations and their main economic struggle is that they do not have supportive market institutions to allow their individual efforts to produce collective goods.

Structural adjustment policies have created debtor nations but these policies have been put in place after countries bankrupted themselves through their own mismanagement and pursuit of non-capitalistic policies. Peru’s nationalization of the banks and Bolivia’s price control on gas are two to note which sent these countries into freefall until they restructured their economies and are now growing at a strong rate.

To your point about the South financing the North. The North has given huge sums of money through the World Bank and IMF in the past. These are loans that need to be paid back (usually much lower than market rates). The constant flows of money from the South the to North are payments from loans the North has given them. Feel free to attack the IMF and World Bank for their practices. I personally think a lot of what they have done is crap since they are run by politicians with their own personal interests, but the point is that the South is not financing the North. If you limit your scope to focus only on what you want then yes the South is financing the North, but that is simply being naive which now can’t be the case.

one thing you point out which is important is the difference between image and reality. Americans have been taught to believe our nation is the best at everything (image), which has the effect of hiding very important flaws and problems (reality). all i’m doing is bringing those flaws to light so we can address them. i’m doing the same thing with capitalism, which has been surrounded by an enormous amount of propaganda and theoretical jargon, clouding the reality of how the system actually functions.

Perkins was a high-ranking American official engaged in restructuring Global South economies by giving countries enormous loans they could never repay. he describes how these loans never benefited the countries because they were used to pay US corporations to build enormous “development” projects which were often unnecessary or highly destructive, such as massive dams.

he also talks about how if the leaders of those nations refused to take the loans, or refused to make the drastic changes that were demanded of them once they could not repay (such as cutting health care and education spending, or dropping environmental regulations), more persuasive measures such as bribes, threats, or actual CIA assassinations were employed to acquire a “change of leadership.” it’s a very important book.

the point i keep making is that there are some extremely wealthy and powerful forces which will do whatever they can to hold on to their wealth, and constantly increase it, at everyone else’s expense. thankfully there are people like John Perkins who tell the truth and give us an opportunity to take the power back.

I am familiar with Perkin’s book, and it is a very interesting read. The problem with using it in this discussion is that it highlights corruption and political incentives for government officials which is a different issue. The rich have tried to secure their wealth and gain more in every part of human history, and to do so they create barriers that channel resources in their direction which is exactly against what capitalism tells us to do. People is power squander enormous amounts of resources but the this is true of any economic and political system. If you claim that there is more corruption in capitalistic societies I would disagree, but capitalism is prone to corruption since we are human and by definition, are fallible.

Capitalism like any other isms will be replaced with one special ism that is more effective, productive, and rational than capitalism. So far no one has offered better system than capitalism and that is reason capitalism won. The only chance to win capitalism is to give every public work post to the best available worker and making him very responsible for what he is doing. This is actually the market of work posts which capitalism cannot afford. Such an idea will make the best production possible and therefore will force capitalism to go down to history. But there is a catch. This is not easy to do and that is the reason capitalism is still here. Capitalism needed a lot of time to replace feudalism which needed who knows how long time to replace slavery. The next system must be better for capitalists and for workers in order to be accepted and be able to replace capitalism. Then it will come naturally without matter of what kind of bottom up movement for change is established. I have invented such a system.

Ah, ok you already posted the link above. I read it… so basically you are saying we should have a system like the USSR had, where computers determine how to most efficiently run the economy etc… except that unlike the USSR, this new society would be free of corruption (and the computers would work better). I’m not exactly sure how to create this utopia you’ve dreamed up, but I am sure you aren’t the first to describe it.

in short, i urge us to revitalize and deepen our common values of democracy, freedom, justice, sustainability and love. if we do so, we can create a generous economy that cares for the needs of all, including the planet – not just the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

these values are mutually supportive – so if we increase democracy, we’ll almost certainly increase sustainability as well. for example, why would we vote to pollute our air and water? of course we wouldn’t! but under capitalism, this is precisely what happens, because the power is held by the corporations and banks, who want to make money and don’t care about the public or the planet. it’s really that simple.

i can’t offer a complete systematic illustration of how the economy would work if it was guided by these common values. for that you might want to check out something like Participatory Economics, as envisioned by Michael Albert.

So Alex, I’ve never met you but I would like to. You should come hang out with me and my friends at the J&H caf sometime, like around 4:30pm on weekdays (dinner time so as not to waste time). We are a diverse group of libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc. who argue with each other.

At one point in my life, when I was younger (I’m 25 now, already feeling old), I felt that a new world really was possible. I’m less optimistic about that now, having met so many people who don’t come to the conclusions you’ve come to… altruism and intelligence is rarer than you think, i think. But don’t let me discourage you, because obviously we are doomed if everyone becomes as pessimistic as I am…

p.s. like you, i’ve also lived in the “global south” (mexico to be precise). have also visited DR & Cuba.

i am asserting that a new world is not only possible, it is necessary, and inevitable!

whether that new world is one shaped by our common values of freedom, democracy, etc., or one shaped by fear and exploitation – that is up in the air.

however i hold great hope that although things may get darker in the short term as fascism creeps into power, in the long run the only sustainable way of living on this planet is going to be a much more democratic and decentralized way of life. we can keep delaying that further and further into the future to maintain short-term privileges, or we can embrace it now and spare ourselves the unnecessary destruction and grief.

regardless, human economy will eventually be forced to co-exist with the planet, and all systems of oppression which try to prevent this co-existence will fall and break into a million pieces. as we lose the imperatives to act like robots in a grand machine, our natural human tendencies to care for one another, care for the planet, and enjoy life will reassert themselves.

i think our goal should be to inspire and organize people to make this happen sooner, rather than later. i’d rather not have to live through fascism just to get to something decent. besides, working for a better world is so much more fun than not!

ok alex so i was telling an anarchist friend about your idea that capitalism must end soon and something will take its place. he was skeptical. true, cheap oil resources are running out on this planet, but we still have nuclear, and battery tech is leaping forward at such a rate that electric vehicles (etc) will soon be much more practical. in terms of other minerals, we could expend the effort to build a program to mine asteroids or the moon, it is technically feasible with our current science if investment is made in engineering.

a libertarian friend of mine says it is pointless for us to worry about global warming, since even if we haven’t gone past the point of no return, we as a species are supremely vulnerable to any number of events on this planet, either cosmic in nature of planetary (like a super volcano eruption which would kill basically all life worth talking about, and which we’re due for sometime soon in geological time)… so in his mind the best use of our resources right now is colonizing other planets or the moon, and that is something capitalism could really use in its growth model.

now in terms of the human resource limitation… Africans are still vastly under-utilized for capitalist labor, aren’t they? and the global population is increasing at a tremendous rate…

as for the other technological fixes, the fundamental problem with all of them is the absolute lack of energy with which to realize them. i Richard Heinberg has done a better job laying out these energy limits than myself, so everyone should read his book “The Party’s Over”. failing that, see his recent article “Searching for a Miracle”: http://www.postcarbon.org/report/44377-searching-for-a-miracle

he concludes that there is no combination of energy sources or technologies which can make up for the loss of oil by 2100.

i’m not sure what to say to your global warming denier friend. the evidence is all around us, and science has been 100% clear on this. the climate is changing, and we are the cause.

finally, i think the idea that Africa is under-exploited is about the most brutal thing i’ve heard in a while. i think we need to expand our understanding of capitalism/imperialism and realize that just because you aren’t working in a factory doesn’t mean that your labor is not part of the capitalist system.

one huge piece that we need to pay attention to is how Africa has been and continues to be exploited for its minerals, and how Africans as people are being exploited to drive this mining. i am going to write a large section of my book about the resource wars and genocide that are going on in the Congo right now for coltan and other minerals necessary for cell phones, laptops, etc. in my view this is the most blaring example of contemporary “Enclosures”, or the violent displacement from land that was necessary to kick-start capitalism in Europe and that has never ended, only moved to more remote locations.

hey alex, thanks for schooling me on nuclear. it does seem much less promising than solar and other things. i still think the energy crisis isn’t as much of a crisis as many doomsayers believe, though i don’t have the data at hand (if such exists) to prove my optimism on this point.

you asked if i was asking the questions myself or something like that… obviously i am asking the questions and hoping to hear your responses, and others are helping me to think of these questions. i sense a bit of defensiveness in your reply but that could be inaccurate. i am not attacking you, merely your arguments. i think you are a wonderful person, worthy of more respect even than i have for myself, and i hope that by attacking your arguments i will be in some way helpful for your thinking process in writing the book or whatever you spend your energy on.

one thing is you didn’t read what i wrote about my libertarian friend. he doesn’t deny global warming, just that he isn’t sure we can still reverse it with conservation at this point (read Lovelock), and even if we could, there are many other ways we can be annihilated on this planet, no matter how well we treat the Earth and each other. i think he has valid points.

now as for my idea of exploiting Africans more, you started talking about how we are exploiting them via exploiting their resources. i understand, i think, what you are saying, but the fact remains that there is tremendous labor potential in Africa and other places with low labor connection to capitalist enterprise (China is beginning to capitalize on it). also as i said, the population of Earth is rapidly expanding, so I really don’t see labor shortage as a problem for capitalism.

anyway to sum up, I don’t think capitalism is in as big a crisis as you do, though I’m not sure it matters one way or the other… i mean, as you say, we have a choice between a good future and a bad one (whether continued capitalism or fascism). that has always been true. so the point is how can we most effectively convert people to our ideas of democracy etc. (as well as strengthening our own understandings of our ideas… for example I consider myself an anarchist-wannabe, though I wonder about things which i have not had time to fully think about, like what about traffic cops, and pollution cops, and what about intervention against genocide (etc) in far-off places etc… how would anarchist societies deal with these and other challenges?)

i feel pessimistic about this because a) i am around too many people who are ignorant or don’t care about politics at all, b) i am around too many people who do care about politics and have strong convictions based on things like religion or tradition or etc that i have trouble changing their minds about, and of course c) i’m just in general lonely and depressed

of course pessimism is no excuse for inaction. i understand that, at some level.

im sorry if my previous comment came off as defensive or snippy, i wasn’t trying to be. internet communication has a way of becoming hostile, because it’s just alien text arguing with alien text, there’s no human connection, body language, emotional expression, etc. also as i am male-socialized i sometimes struggle with competitive knee-jerk reactions as patriarchy has trained me to. so thanks for calling me out on this attitude.

i’m sorry that you’re having trouble with pessimism and depression, but please don’t have more respect for anyone else than for yourself! self-love is the foundation for positive action. not selfishness or self-aggrandizement, but basic love for yourself. also, i appreciate your criticisms and you’re right, it does help me think about my topic in new ways. so thanks!

now then, sorry i misunderstood your friends concerns. i can’t say much about cosmic or planetary catastrophes which may possibly occur at some point in the future, other than that i dont think we can really worry about them as we have no control over them and dont know if they’re real threats (unless there’s compelling evidence of a real threat, which i would be skeptical of). global warming, on the other hand, we KNOW to be a real threat, and we also know that we can prevent the worst effects of it by switching to a more sustainable economic path. so it make sense to worry about it and do something about it.

let’s look closer at the labor issue. you say Africa has a “low labor connection to capitalist enterprise”. i fundamentally disagree. capitalism has expanded to a point where the entire globe is within its orbit. Africa in particular was first sucked into it over a hundred years ago through European colonialism, which destroyed the communal and pastoral lifeways of Africans and pushed most people into for-profit farming and wage labor, as well as slavery. please note: slavery has always been a part of capitalism even though the workers do not earn a wage. what matters is that the product of their labor is exploited for the global market.

if you haven’t yet, check out Adam Hochschild’s excellent book King Leopold’s Ghost, about the Belgian conquest of the Congo. it explains how the Belgians used genocide, slavery, and mass-amputations to create a low-wage/slave-based rubber economy that displaced the traditional economies of the Africans in those areas, as well as transforming the environment of the region by replacing the forests with rubber plantations. this is the face of capitalism.

so as i say, the exploitation of coltan, bauxite, diamonds, gold, ivory, oil, and other resources from Africa is all part of the capitalist system, even if the workers doing it are not being paid a wage, or working in a factory. plus consider that unemployed people who are living on the brink of starvation are ALSO part of the capitalist labor market because their unemployed presence drives down the wages of those who are employed. therefore the extreme poverty and anguish of Africa acts not only to allow the super-cheap extraction of highly-valuable minerals from the continent, but also as a weight dragging down the wages of workers in other continents, therefore sustaining higher profits for the system as a whole. this is why the AIDS pandemic, completely treatable malaria and other diseases, and preventable famines, are kept going by the powers-that-be. Africa’s suffering means billions for multinational corporations.

so i dont see the population issue the way you do. capitalism is responsible for this growth in population, and the vast vast majority of these people ARE part of the labor market already, even if they don’t have a waged job. the system wants nothing more than huge masses of people without access to land, clamoring for any job that will provide them a miniscule wage. it’s a wet dream for employers.

the questions you ask are good ones. and i don’t want to pretend that i have all the answers either. but through conversations like these, hopefully we are developing the understandings of the world that are necessary to move forward and create that better future!

thanks for your reply alex. there is a lot of debate actually over whether we can do anything at all to stop global warming at this point (scientists agree there is a tipping point but disagree on whether or not we have already passed it).

as for Africa, i think we on the left tend to equate poverty with capitalist exploitation like it’s all proportional by definition. but capitalist exploitation is all about increasing worker productivity (while keeping them on a subsistence wage) in order to produce more profits. in Africa, worker productivity, especially in agriculture, is at rock bottom, which means the connection to capitalism is slight. capitalists in China understand this, and they are making investments in infrastructure in Africa so that the population will be more productive.

of course you are correct that capitalism requires a reserve pool of labor (the unemployed) to keep wages down, but i don’t think this is the reason that Africans are impoverished, since they are not in direct competition with the rest of the world in most cases, due to the low productivity factor. i mean, if they had similar levels of infrastructure to Latin America, say, then maybe the reserve labor pool would make sense. but if they can’t compete in global capitalism due to lack of infrastructure, they aren’t functioning as much of a reserve labor pool (unless the emigrate).

you say you don’t see the population explosion as helping capitalism to further its exploitation, because the vast majority of people are already part of the labor market… but my point is that the vast majority of people are only a fraction of the number of people we will have on this planet in the coming decades to exploit…

but anyway, like i said, and like you said, whether or not capitalism is at its end is not all that important. the fundamental problem is how to foster cooperation over competition.

in terms of climate change, the “tipping points” argument should not be used as an excuse for inaction. of course there may be feedback loops that, once triggered, lead to more warming. but in no way can this be used to justify the policy decisions which are creating more greenhouse gas pollution right now, for example the $8 billion obama just offered to the nuclear industry, or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. these must be opposed, regardless of fear of tipping points. we simply cannot KNOW that the world is automatically doomed once we reach a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere. it’s better to just reduce it back to a safe level.

on the Africa question, i have to say that i haven’t done enough research to say precisely how most Africans are employed, and can’t generate a list of all the ways multinational corporations are profiting from them. if Chinese companies are finding ways to exploit Africans, that’s something to be aware of. but i don’t think we need to compare Africa to Latin America or other Global South areas to understand that Africans are laboring WITHIN the capitalist system. one way we can see this is through the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) which the IMF and World Bank have imposed upon Africa to force them to pay back huge unpayable debts. the governments of Africa are being forced to generate billions of dollars to give to Western banks to pay for enormous “development” projects like dams, which were contracted out to Western companies to begin with. so there is a huge vacuum sucking money out of the continent in that way.

i also think the argument you make about worker productivity is formulaic and simplistic. just because African farmers don’t have tractors or other machines doesn’t mean their labor isn’t being exploited for the global market. the African slaves who were brought to America a few hundred years ago were toiling with their bare hands to pick cotton, nevertheless their labor made possible America’s industrial revolution through the huge profits generated. (don’t pay someone for their labor = superexploitation).

i see this situation as having been brought to Africa by European colonialism, and never having ended. the child laborers/slaves in the Congo who are extracting tiny quantities of coltan from the earth with bare hands without any tools at this very moment, are doing what you might call highly unproductive labor. but their labor allows the production of the world’s laptops and cell phones, so it is undeniably part of the capitalist system.

are you suggesting that it would only be capitalism if this mining was being done with the use of tools, machines, and earth-movers? perhaps we can imagine this as more efficient, because it would employ less people and they wouldn’t be child slaves. nevertheless it seems to me it would be impossibly more costly for the coltan warlords and therefore produce higher-priced coltan – which we can agree is the opposite of what the global market demands.

i think the definition of productivity needs to be investigated. are we just going by what an economics textbook would call “higher productivity”? in my mind it’s fundamentally about profits. if the profits from children working as slaves with bare hands are higher (which of course is the case with millions of starving children running around – a situation they created), capitalism will prefer this scenario every time. as long as it can continue to hide it from us so we can’t generate resistance to it, that is.

I suppose you’re right that given the uncertainty it makes sense to scale back CO2 production, though really I think this has gotten off-point, since the point originally was whether the environment was a limit to capitalism, though limits to capitalism itself are off-point as well.

From what I know of Africa, it has very little industry compared to Latin America. Most of the money that flows out of Africa into the capitalist hegemons is via resource extraction, which of course employs some small percentage of people, but the point is that the exploitation is much more of resources than of people in Africa. Subsistance farming is the norm there, and urbanization has yet to take off (see http://www.grida.no/publications/other/geo3/?src=/geo/geo3/english/410.htm). Again, I’m not saying that Africa is not being exploited, just that in terms of human labor, it is not yet nearly as exploited as it could be.

if the question is would it be more profitable to use machines to extract resources, i think the answer is yes, and the only reason it isn’t being done is because, as you say, warlords control the resources and they don’t have the stability needed to invest in better extraction methods… again, i see you getting caught up in the idea that more suffering = more profit, yet the equation is not so simple. of course even with machines you’d likely still have a lot of hard labor left for actual people to do, depending on what is being mined.

now as for the expanding global population, i agree that it’s a distraction by the right, but I never said it was the big problem that we need to prioritize… I said it was an area of potential growth for capitalism (more people to exploit)

i think you are not grasping the true depth of the system’s dominance. it is much more complex than just saying industrialization / urbanization = capitalism. are most Africans really still living in communal lifeways and organic societies? raising animals or crops to sustain their communities, and not engaged in the global market? i find this highly contradictory to everything i have read or heard about the continent.

it’s necessary to appreciate the fact that capitalism always requires a process of “enclosures” to drive its growth. marxists call this “primitive accumulation” and it takes the form of driving farmers from their land, slavery and other non-wage forms of labor exploitation, starting wars and genocide, and destroying communal ways of life. this is not just what had to happen for capitalism to kickstart in Europe, it is an ongoing process all around the world. in capitalism there are always people being enslaved, working in abominable conditions, etc. and yes it is often more profitable than using heavy industry.

i am actually starting a discussion group about Caliban and the Witch, which is an excellent book that sheds an incredible new light on the nature of capitalism, from a feminist perspective. can’t recommend it highly enough!

The ultimate question, it seems to me, is , do the systems that humans have created, taken precedence over deliberate human thinking. Personally, it seems to me, the systems have a life of their own, with the clearest example being the recent financial crisis. Too many people, and in order to manage the numbers, our systems have to take control. The other factor is non-linear results of ordered systems. Sorry humanists, we’re not in control any longer.

that’s a good question and not one i have a detailed answer for, but here’s a sketch of my thoughts.

the internet is an incredible technology, and no doubt it is having drastic effects on our society, both good and bad.

on the bad side we can see how the internet is a function of capitalism. giant corporations like Google are taking control of more and more information, encroaching on privacy and civil liberties, etc. then you have the government using it to spy on us and monitor our activities, etc. plus consider that the internet is just one more huge distraction for most people, to occupy our minds with mostly frivolous junk and keep us from thinking about changing society for the better. this is all very worrisome.

on the other hand the internet has the potential to be used to build opposition movements and connect people with anticapitalist viewpoints who would otherwise never have been able to connect. “social networking” sites like facebook can be quite useful for spreading information rapidly to lots of people. and obviously i use the internet to get out my views daily!

if we look at the Global Justice Movement of 10 years ago, which was highly successful at impeding a new round of global financial agreements through the WTO, FTAA and a bunch of other acronyms, that was a global movement in part because of the ease of internet communications across national boundaries.

I wonder if you’ve heard about the 2012 World Strike? The message is spreading.

WORLD STRIKE 2012

If you agree that the abolition of money would be a fine solution to most of our problems, and that we could create a much better system where EVERYTHING – food and drink, clothing and housing, water, heating, education, health-care and entertainment – shall be FREE for EVERYONE – why not join the World-Wide Strike on the opening day of the Olympic Games in 2012?

The Strike will begin the moment the symbolic Olympic flame is lit – the signal for all who support the abolition of money to stop work and demand a new fair world of true freedom and justice.

A moneyless world. Sounds good. But money doesn’t mean just coins and paper bills. Money can be anything that is valued by people. Are you going to destroy everything that has value to human beings?

The day after the world becomes totally “moneyless,” how many people do you think will wake up at 7am and hop in their car, or get on the bus, or ride the subway to work? are you? do you think the people that run the electric, gas, and water companies that provide energy and water to your house are going to work if they know they’re not getting any “money” on payday? are surgeons and doctors going to perform life savings operations and procedures out of the good of their heart???? some may. most won’t. how are you going to motivate people to do all of the functions that are required to run what we have considered to be “daily activities”???

“here again what i see is a system that rewards greed and cruelty, at the expense of basic human need. i see a system that profits from taking away people’s security.”

once “basic human need” is fulfilled, greed and cruelty will follow. yes i agree with you that capitalism has caused misfortunes for the majority of people that live on this planet, but it is a system that was created by humans. “1% of Americans control trillions of dollars and drive around in HUMMER limousines”- human beings on this planet want and strive to be that 1%. right this minute in Brooklyn, NY i’m surrounded by hundreds of employees who all work in finance. thousands more in this building. if any of us were offered the position of CEO earning a salary of $500 million and another $250 million in stock options, would any of ur refuse it? hell no! would you?????

years ago when man killed in order to eat he didn’t make banners and call to all other men to come and eat with him. he fought for his food and he defended it. is it considered greed to deny other members of his race the basic necessity to eat? he just wanted what was his. why give free handouts to others who didn’t work as hard as them.

I agree with you that people should watch Michael Moore’s movie Capitalism. Not just for anit-capitalism reasons, but just to open our eyes about life in general. to show how much life has changed as we continue to “advance” after our “basic human needs” are no longer everyday struggles.

what is the answer to all this madness? there doesn’t really seem to be any answers out there. is this just the path humans were meant to take? what do we do? how do we do it? whether it’s intentional or unintentional, change will come to this planet. good or bad.

Alex, whatever peoples’ veiwpoints, I applaud you for making this site. Thank you.

i was a bit confused by your message. are you saying that people’s basic human needs are no longer everyday struggles? because i would strongly disagree with that statement. even overlooking the 2 billion of us who struggle to get drinkable water or edible food everyday, what about the billions more scraping by on poverty wages to try to feed their families all around the world, including right here.

i don’t know what the motivations of the financial workers and managers you’re surrounded by are, but i’m not surprised that it’s greed; the system has trained them with lifetimes of schooling to think and act that way.

you ask if i would take the CEO position of the financial firm. absolutely not. and not just because it would put me in a morally indefensible position where my decisions lead to the unemployment, impoverishment, and even death of hundreds or thousands or millions of people, as i’m sure that CEO’s decisions are doing.

no, i would reject that job for the simple reason that there is more important work for me to be doing. my work is the job of articulating some “answers” that you claim you cannot see to our common dilemma. and bringing people together who want to solve this mess. only WE can solve it. what good will millions of dollars do you as an individual when the climate is scorched, war, violence, racism and hate are everywhere, and fascism is on the rise? that’s the world we will inherit through our inaction.

action, on the other hand, can do many wonderful things. like make it so nobody has to go hungry just because the government wants to build more useless nuclear weapons.

Agree with most of what I read here. I want to see action. And if it’s a fight they want, the poor will devour the rich purely through numbers. And I believe the rich know this and are struggling to keep us unorganized. Any ideas????????????

You’re right Danny,the establishment purposely keeps the majority population (the workers and unemployed) divided along manufactured lines. Economic (middle and lower classes) politics (republican and democratic) religious, national and racial. It’s s not a vast concerted conspiracy, at least not now, it now has a life of its own, we the exploited masses, perpetuate the very same divisions as our own with out conscious reflection, generally at least.

Talk is one thing and like you say where is the action? That’s what I’m here for. I’m trying to network with like minded individuals to consolidate the masses. Any effort for an improved world must come from the masses not from any elitist group whether left or right. But the masses are as usual ignorant and generally unresponsive. An effort must be made by those of us sitting at computers or at the coffee shops debating amongst ourselves to bring these diverse views together and consolidate our efforts. The left is so divided even amongst ourselves, the anarchists, the Marxists, and the social democrats. The important point is that we all basically agree on the end goal. Radical social change. The major rift is mainly over tactics. How do we get there? Anarchists believe we can go straight from a capitalist culture to a communal one, the Marxists or communists (although the term is very corrupted by the establishment) believe there must be a intermediate period in which the population or masses are guided into the communalistic society, both of these threads believing that violent revolution is necessary since the elites will never relinquish their wealth w/out a fight, the social democrats basically believe in non-violent subversion of the current political structure. Nut regardless of your ideological leanings action is still required. Talk is good and important to has out the issues but to focus here is to put the cart before the horse. Its all a none issue until the masses unite to gain our self- determining future. Allowing ourselves to be divided along ideological lines plays right into the structure needs. My email is wbuentello@comcast.net lets seriously start moving forward.

in response to Danny and Nobel, it’s great that you want to take action! i hope you are doing so.

i just want to encourage you to start from where you are, and then to organize. if you’re a student, why not organize other students? if you’re a worker, why not organize your fellow workers? if you live in a community, organize your neighborhood!

if you need help finding other radical people to learn from and share ideas with, connect with an organization! there are millions of organizations and projects all across the US aimed at changing this country for the better. find people who are already doing this work, and join them!

Students for a Democratic Society (newsds.org) is one that i can recommend, i used to be very active with their work of organizing students and youth for a more democratic and sustainable society.

I agree with your theoretical position that our present capitalist system is unsustainable since it depends on continuous growth of output. Unfortunately I have not come across an economic theory which is based on a society with zero or negative output. Obviously when we live in a world with finite resources we cannot expect them to last for ever. We we must work out an economic system which conserves what we have and rebuilds what we have lost

capitalism isnt unsustainable due to a focus on continuous growth of output. this is just a symptom of a larger issue. that being its express reliance on exchange value and a systemic rejection of use value. the true meaning of use value is ignored and glossed over by the mainstream economists, their books and their theories of operation. finding an economic theory based on negative or zero output is almost an oxymoron since economics is based on output. its the value that this output has that is important to addressing the current problems social and economic. in a nutshell exchange value is based on scarcity and use value on abundance.

exchange value: the less ppl use it ie the less social good an item has, the more valuable it is to the individual. the focus: individual profit

use value: the more ppl use it ie the more social good it has, the more valuable it is TO SOCIETY as a whole. the focus: social good

as u may have noticed use value is almost an alien concept w/in the current manifestation of the capitalist social construct… a shame

in response to Bob, there are many people who are theorizing an economy that does not grow. this website has a list of links to different interpretations of this, including the “Steady State Economy” as theorized by Herman Daly, “DeGrowth”, the “Genuine Progress Indicator” (as opposed to Gross Domestic Product), and more. check it out!

Read of your blogs recently Alex, where one person was arguing for a capitalist economy on the basis that he should not have any upper ceiling on what he could earn. I am so sad that this mindset exists at all let alone prevails. How can we call ourselves an intelligent species when so many view this as the most important reason for living, regardless of the suffering this imbalanced reward system creates. It is also the case that the imbalance and decisions to reward some many time more than others, is not God given or cast in stone, nor does it follow any natural law.

i would like to interject w/ a point regarding christianities part in the capitalist culture. w/ the growing influence of capitalism in the world economy in the 16th century you also had the protesant reformation which did alot to moralize individualism and profit seeking. the protestants didnt explicitly equate the profit motive w/ greed, going w/ the now common axiom that, in terms of the economy, seeking your own personal gain provided for the greater good through the so called trickle down effect as ben franklin famously explained. this i believe is where the christian right draw their moral righteousness from.

I was directed to this site by a friend. I am glad to have found it, and to see that there are unshackled minds in America.

A correspondent above made the mistake of saying “Complete freedom means having no rules, no laws, no accountability”. This is perhaps the oldest canard that exists in uninformed critiques of (small a) anarchistic solutions; as Mikhail Bakunin said “In matters of bootmaking I yield entirely to the bootmaker”.

My own blog exists mainly for humour, but I will be making occasional serious entries, and even in the humour you may find some message. Please feel free to visit.

I will bookmark your site, and look forward to your FAQs coming on line.

… by the way, I disagree that “socialism is a dead word” simply because it was discredited by the oligarchy that was the USSR. “To each according to her needs, from each according to her abilities” is still a sane, rational, humane principle. Again I quote Bakunin: “Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.”

i believe my full words were “socialism is a dead word in the United States.”

obviously the US is the exception to the world, as usual. in Latin America, Europe, the UK where you are, and most places, “socialism” means a system of democracy and equality.

in the US, “socialism” almost exclusively means USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, and to a disturbing number of uninformed individuals, it means Nazism/Hitler.

so the reason i’m not a fan of using the word is simply a strategic decision on my part, considering the people i am trying to reach. whether we like it or not, if you call yourself a socialist, most Americans have ceased to listen to you.

moreover, even if we could strip the word of all the immediate negative associations we have been taught, we would still need to imbue the word with an original positive meaning, because the socialist movement has in my opinion provided inadequate answers to the 2 major crises we face: the ecological crisis and the social crisis.

for that reason ive decided it’s a better use of my energy to begin with the word “progressive” to describe my politics. not only does it have a general positive association, it is relatively undefined, and therefore there is an opening for it to be defined by anti-capitalists such as ourselves.

i also agree w/ yuo on the pitfalls of using an outmodwed or even corrupted term like socialism or communism. if the goal is to reach ppl then its important to be sensitive to the public perception whether right or wrong. this is not about us but about the fullfillment of the ppl as a whole. in order to be effective we must instead use terms like progressive, which, by the way, fox news and the right has been very quick to try to counter w/ hilarious montages by the likes of glenn beck saying ridiculous things like progressiveness is evil and leads to fascism and hitler.

thanks for being a consistent commenter and supporter! you have a lot of useful things to say. i agree with you, Glenn Beck is absolutely a terror. if we keep doing what is right, soon enough we’ll all be up on his chalkboard. that would be a sign that we’re on the right track!

technically the capitalists historically “steal” technology from the social structure itself. how? a great majority if not all major technological advancements which fueled the largest of the capitalists profit gains did NOT start in the private sector as the propaganda would like you to believe. the r&d is funded by the public usually through the military but also thru subsidies. it gets turned over to the private sector once it becomes profitable. this is well documented & not open to interpretation.

as a side note the so called “communists” which operated under a command economy as opposed to a market economy actually were responsible for quite a few technological innovations and played an equal role in the technology race. a consequence of which is alot of the nifty little things that you use everyday and erroneously believe are the sole result of capital risk ventures like new technology. before the recent market saturation, capitalist were inherently reluctant to invest in the development of new technology since the whole idea was to systematically increase profits and r&d is always very expensive. they therefore preferred, most logically, to re-invest capital in production like economy of scale. only now due to market saturation do the xcapitalist invest in risk ventures and those ventures are almost exclusively to be found in the financial markets & not r&d of new technology.

im glad you appreciate my input. i enjoy the dialog. i live in a very small community that is very conservative christian right. there just isnt many local outlets for me to network w others. i just got back from a 4 year “hiatus” during which i educated myself and began to see the real picture so this is very instructive for me. im continously looking for ways to participate.

glad to hear the enthusiasm. there are a million ways to participate in the construction of a more sustainable and democratic world.

i’ll send you my recent interview, which lays out the basic theory i am proposing. i’m not sure if you’ve read it already. but if you have an interest in giving me feedback, i’d be excited to read your response.

Hi Alex,
Very nice site!!! Are you aware of The Venus Project? They offer a possible future to the organization of the worlds society in a peaceful, sustainable, and intellectually freeing manner. I hope you will check it out. A good place to start is their FAQ: http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

i checked out the site, and though i agree with many of the ideas espoused, i was confronted with a tremendous shortcoming:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy
“A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years.”

in other words, sheer fantasy. the images of “cities on the ocean and under the ocean” drive this point home. in order to grow the economy, or increase the quantity of energy consumed by the economy (which is the same thing), you would have to exploit the planet’s resources to a GREATER degree, not a lesser degree. and the truth is that the planet cannot sustain more economic growth.

we need to design an economy that co-exists in a harmonious balance WITHIN the ecology of the Earth. attempting to further dominate nature for our own benefit is bound to fail. and, i would suggest, a bad idea anyway.

if i’m being unfair to your ideas please let me know. but i feel that you haven’t fully appreciated my ideas either. i would suggest you read “The End of Growth” by Richard Heinberg. techno-utopia sounds fantastic for a reason. “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

The ideas of The Venus Project (TVP) unfortunately can’t be absorbed through a quick glance. You’ll have to take the time to understand exactly how the society would be structured.

The claim that energy could be provided for in unlimited quantities for thousands of years is backed up by MIT studies on Geothermal Energy, as well as other studies looking at the potential of all of the renewable resources listed. Those energies combined with a redesign of society, with maximum sustainability in mind, is why we feel this can be achieved.

The “cities on the sea” idea is just an example of what could possibly be achieved if a RBE society is in place, and available land becomes an issue. It is by no means The Venus Projects goal to build cities on the sea. It is just a possible solution to a possible problem assuming we have the available resources to do so.

“we need to design an economy that co-exists in a harmonious balance WITHIN the ecology of the Earth”
I can tell you didn’t get too far in your exploration of TVP’s ideas. The whole organization of society is based upon a measurement of the worlds resources and then using those resources (or not using them) with maximal sustainability in mind. If something is considered unsustainable, then it is not done. We would have to look for other alternative practices/resources. The technology to do this already exists today, we just need to apply and/or scale it.

I read “The End of Growth” as well as your 5 part “Synopsis”. I don’t have any real disagreements with what you say. I don’t see a real plan of action there either. I was hoping TVP could fill this (perceived) void.

I have two videos that I hope you will take the time to watch. The first is the Orientation Guide to The Zeitgeist Movement (It is the Activist arm of TVP). The second is a lecture from Peter Joseph entitled “Where are we going?”. These should help you understand our ideas further. I think you’ll see we have a lot in common.

The Venus Project is a New Age butterfly catching tool… catch all those butterflies looking for beautiful, bright flowers, keep them in a dream that will never happen. The people behind this are the very capitalist system. It’s a cul de sac, a controlled opposition tool.
A bit of research and you soon find out who Jacques Fresco and Roxanne are friends with…
They prey on gullible people.

After reading “What is Capitalism,” which describes what I would refer to as “Western Industrial Capitalism,” I would like to propose a simpler definition: Any system for the management and distribution of capital. I would also like to suggest that “capital” be considered to be any production in excess of that needed to satisfy the basic needs of an individual (food & water, clothing, shelter, the society of ones fellows). “Capitalism,” then, would apply equally to western “democratic,” states and to eastern “communist” states.

Excess production requires investment if it is not to depreciate (since it is production above what is needed, it must be “stored” somehow). Investment generates more excess: capital generates more capital. There will always be some people with more access to capital, and others with less: Capitalism will always generate a hierarchy (whether it be the western industrial oligarchy or the eastern communist politburo). Regardless how it is regulated, people with more access to capital will find ways to generate more capital for themselves. The generation of capital (excess) requires the conversion of resources: Capitalism will always, eventually, destroy the environment.

thanks for your comment. i plan on updating the “What is Capitalism” page, as it has not been updated in a while, so i appreciate your comments.

i agree with you that the so-called “Communist” states of Russia, China, North Korea, etc. are/were in fact capitalist – state capitalist to be precise. however, your proposed definition is too broad in my opinion. a system that produces in excess of need, and maintains a hierarchy, can be defined as a State, or by some like Derrick Jensen as the essence of “civilization” itself.

capitalism is not the only system that produces in excess and invests the surplus – this also accurately describes the Roman Empire, Mayan civilization, ancient China, and really any class society.

what distinguishes capitalism as one particular kind of class society, for me, is that it is based on:

1) wage labor (a huge population that cannot survive without selling itself to do work),

2) commodity production (people’s needs can only be met by buying mass-produced goods and services), and

3) capital investment removed from any loyalty to social or ecological need (economists call this “the market,” but what they mean is free reign for investors to make a profitable return on their investments).

it’s this final piece that, you rightly point out, mandates that the system continually grow, and eventually “destroy the environment.”

in most other respects, capitalism is not so different from every other form of class society. from the Babylonians on down, there’s been a massive division between rich and poor, male dominance, warfare and genocide, racial and ethnic hatred, the accumulation of power or wealth for the few at the expense of the many, ideological conditioning or State religion (market fundamentalism?), and environmental unsustainability.

I think we need to look at who the capitalists of the world are and their motivation. We also need to look at history and the fact that the kings and tribal leaders of old weren’t that much different than the capitalists of today or more recent history. Wealth leads to power which is another word for privilege and being above the law. In order to turn things around we need to remove the mindset that many in power have and have had. I am going out on limb by saying the following (though I have heard many nationally recognized progressives say the same) and that is I believe there is an element of (for a lack of a better term) mental illness involved on the part of the very powerful. Lack of empathy, the ability to lie without remorse, the ability to harm another without remorse, narrow mindedness and short sightedness are not only the signs of sociopath but are traits of many politicians, military leaders and corporate CEOs. They certainly don’t follow the maxim of “The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few or the one”. In fact, they seem to believe the opposite.

As the article pointed out, Capitalism is on it’s way out whether anyone likes or not. In fact, again as the article pointed out, it is for all practical purposes already dead. The key is that once it is finally swept under the rug of history and a better and more just system is established we must constantly put a stop to anyone who would want to reestablish what is really just another form of slavery.

This is my reply to your response – originally found at ‘part 3 life after capitalism’ Btw I am very inspired by your example of taking up full time activism. I would like to do the same myself. How do you make a living? Any tips? Anyway here is my response….

Ted’s does have an analysis of the social movements your mention. His argument (and I agree, although am open to persuasion of course!) is that there is little point trying to ‘resist capitalism, slow it down, and limit the damage as much as possible.’

Once you realise that it is the very dynamics of the capitalist market economy that is producing all the problems (poverty, environmental crisis, overshoot, conflict/war, falling quality of life etc) it becomes apparent that the only viable solution is to scrap it and build something else. In other words, we should start now (at first, in very humble ways) building the localised democratic alternatives, within existing suburbs and towns. It’s the old anarchist strategy of ‘prefiguring.’ There is a movement (you have probably heard) called ‘transition towns’ which has started this process. They are way too reformist at the moment, but our task should be to work within this and other similar movements, to build viable alternatives AND radical consciousness.

It’s true, as you say, that simply ‘withdrawing from the system’ is not enough. We need to build the practical alternatives AS A MEANS, to educate ordinary people everywhere about the need for radical change, and the existence of viable alternatives. Not many will listen yet, but when the oil peak etc kicks in, more and more may start to listen (unfortunately, it’s unlikely we will succeed, but of course we must try!)
Here is a link to an article by TED, explaining, much better than I can, what should be the focus for Transition…..http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/TheTransitionProcess.html
Cheers

thank you for the praise of my activism. i don’t know that i’m making any particularly different decisions than the millions of activists around the world in terms of my life path. i work part-time, because i could not do what i do if i had to work full-time. this also means i rely on more collective means of survival, such as group housing, bike and public transportation, and public services of many kinds (cheap therapy, public student loan plans, university dental work, etc).

the hardest and most important thing is cultivating a community of caring people around yourself, because without this it is inevitable that you will burn out and lose the capacity to affect change. we must learn to support each other, not only economically but also emotionally.

what about you? perhaps the question on my mind at the moment: how do you stay motivated and productive for change amidst the draining and endlessly distracting capitalist culture?

in response to the focus on Ted Trainer’s work, i don’t believe it’s possible that we will move to a better world if we abandon organizing that confronts the injustices of the system.

while i understand the desire to work to build the material basis of an alternative culture in the here-and-now, and support it fully, this is only ONE part of what must occur. without simultaneously challenging the destructive nature of the system, i believe these lifestyle efforts are futile on the large scale.

as just one example, here in Philadelphia, the city government constantly promotes itself as “Green” and pledges all sorts of projects and initiatives for sustainability, but it’s record is abysmal. for example, hundreds of community gardens have been bulldozed in the last decade or two, and replaced by development. nevertheless, constant waves of young and hopeful Philadelphians pour their energies and creative talents into planting and maintaining community gardens around the city, only to be disappointed when the city betrays them yet again and takes the land.

of course, the gardeners must keep trying, and i support them however i can. BUT, if we do not confront the city government’s hypocrisy and build a movement that can stop them from their foolish destruction of the future, what chance do we have?

similarly, on the global scale, what good are Transition Towns if China and the USA can consistently torpedo any global initiative to curb carbon emissions?

today is Martin Luther King, Jr Day here in the US. this man’s legacy is the legacy of nonviolent direct action to challenge segregation and injustice. MLK didn’t advocate black people just creating their own businesses and withdrawing from the white racist establishment. as moral as that position would have been, MLK and the Civil Rights Movement went on the offensive and challenged racial segregation as a system until they brought it down. millions of people marched, sat-in, got arrested, talked to their neighbors, trained each other in civil disobedience, etc. that’s how change occurred, and we’re better off for it.

ok this turned into a bit of a rant. i agree with you that education is key, and that creating “practical alternatives” is absolutely necessary. however, i think by itself this is only a partial strategy. a more complete strategy must build those alternatives while at the same time challenging the system’s destruction and making room for those alternatives to survive and thrive.

First, thank you for your site. I found it a few months ago and there is a wealth (no pun intended) of information and intriguing discussion here.

I would just like to share a half serious discussion I tried to foment in Yahoo Answers regarding ones inability to “opt out” of capitalism and maybe get your thoughts. I posted my question in the Law & Ethics section there it went like this:

“Why can’t I own land without an income?

I have a little bit of money saved to buy some land. The only thing stopping me from buying the land is the recurring taxes associated with owning land.

Why can’t I, if I prefer, live off the land (I initially buy) and not use or participate in a money based economy (thereafter)?

I prefer to sustain myself. I don’t want to work for anyone and I don’t want to sell anyone anything.

Why can’t I just be allowed to take what I need directly from nature and my own land and not participate in a money based economy?

Why am I being forced to participate in a money based economy because I want to have my own land to live on?”

The responses I received all seem to reflect the fact that the game was rigged and there was no way anyone could opt out of it unless we change the laws. Which is perhaps true. Taxes are, of course, just an extension of capitalism or nod to the priority and influence of money. In other words, taxes have to be collected from me because others participate in capitalism and so I have to get sucked into the game too.

What is particularly disturbing to me about the whole thing is that there doesn’t seem to be a “sane” excuse available for someone to opt out of working or producing for others. You either have to be mentally sick, disabled or a religious organization. It is not recognized that within the realms of sanity that a perfectly healthy and sane private citizen could not want to work for anyone nor sell to anyone to survive.

If someone doesn’t want to work for someone or sell something, they literally can’t settle their own land, even if they have the initial funds to purchase the land outright. They must exist as a nomad. It basically is saying you have no right to exist on the planet or “you can’t stay here”. There is no home for you unless you play the game.

And so I was looking for people’s thoughts on what seems to be a clear violation of a person’s freedoms and maybe even human rights.

[Btw, I want to mention I am not coming at this from an anti-taxes right wing free marketer position. I believe if you have acquired abundance you should share it with others as long as it doesn’t impede your ability to take care of at least your own basic needs. I mean if for people who wish to elect out of the pursuit and exchange of money. ]

i agree with you – there is no hope for an individual to live outside of capitalism – you have to “play the game.” for this reason, we all must work together to transcend capitalism and make it a thing of the past!

“1) wage labor (a huge population that cannot survive without selling itself to do work), …”

That is a huge point of contention with me and capitalism. Glad to see someone had picked up on it long before I did. I really have to read your posts more to see exactly where the present line of debate against capitalism resides. Can you recommend any posts of yours that particularly summarize the modern argument against capitalism? I have formulated my own incomplete ideas and answers but would like to find out if they are up to speed with the current trends in the debate.

I would sincerely hope this can be won by pure debate, assuming our side is very good at formulating our rebuttals.

Hope you are thriving. You wil now have to excuse my slowness in replying.

Your practical suggestion to ‘cultivate a community of caring people’ is very wise and true. I don’t think I’ve personally done enough of that (always been a bit of a lone thinker!) so it’s certainly given me motivation to do so – cheers!
This transition debate is crucial, so it’s good to discuss. I agree we must build a political movement, as well as the local economic alternatives. But what should the movement aim for? In order to sort this out, we must have some idea about what we are aiming for i.e the alternative anti-capitalist society. I agree with Trainer that only a far more localised society (although there would still be room for regional/federal economic/political units etc) is compatible with a just and sustainable world order…the footprint analysis and much else establishes this clearly. I also think if we want a real democracy – one in which all people really participate in making decisions – the basic economic and political institutions are going to have to be far more local; large centralised organisations and institutions (i.e TNCs + States etc etc) cannot deliver the kind of direct inclusive democracy we hope for…
So back to my question, what kind of political movement should we develop? I don’t think it should aim at taking state power because this revolution can’t be imposed from above. The history of ‘actually existing socialism’ proves that even with the best intentions, revolutionaries who impose their ideas/values on people, usually end up creating a repressive disaster. Also, from a purely practical point of view, large scale states/institutions will not be able to run localised economies! That has to be done by the people on the ground, fumbling their way to the new alternatives.
Neither should the movement aim to pressure the state to institute humane reforms. Clearly, this is inadequate because consumer capitalism cannot be fixed – its basic systems and structures (i.e production for profit, the market, economic growth, large states) are what is causing the problems!
So the movement MUST be local and it must aim at creating alternative local (and non-market) economic institutions. How do we get such a movement going? The best way is to begin creating communal economic arrangements in the here and now. Trainer talks about ‘ignoring capitalism to death’ and I think he is basically correct (see his website for details of a practical strategy that small group of people could start now).
It’s true that this will not be enough. At some stage – but only once we have gained enough support and awareness (unfortunately there is very little awareness currently) – we might be able to win local council elections, and, ideally, devolve them into radical democratic communities. A great political philosopher Takis Foutoupolus stresses the importance of this point – I really recommend you check out his excellent (and free!) journal inclusive democracy (his analysis of today’s market capitalism is brilliant in my view) http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/.
But winning local elections is not something we can do now, in a situation where the vast majority of ordinary people do not have the required radical consciousness. Therefore I agree with Trainer that our best option is to devote our energies to educating people via building the inspiring local alternatives here and now.
It’s sad to hear about the frustrations in Philadelphia. This is a real problem, but I don’t think there are any easy answers. If you believe in the need for fundamental change – and not merely reformism – you have to try and create the alternatives. There are many cases where councils can in fact be very supportive; The Transition Towns movement, for example, have had lots of success working collaboratively with local governments. Of course, we would only work with them on practicalities, maintaining our independence and forging the revolution ourselves. There are also other institution that may help such as churches and various other community groups. Sometimes we may be forced to take over derelict urban land illegally…and with a little luck be largely ignored.
Of course, you are right to suggest that all this will be futile, unless at some point we can convince enough ordinary people of the need for change. But how else do we do it? We have to try and educate people, and the best way is through creating inspiring examples of the alternatives….

I have read a part of what you have laid out and I am reminded of my own intellectually growth. When I was a sophomore in college, I took a course called Western Civilization. Toward the end of the course, we were assigned for our next class to illustrate why Karl Marx when incorrect in his analysis of capitalism. I was the first to speak and I eloquently listed the rise of the middle class, the development of the stock market (allowing for broad and diversified participation in capital formation), true democratic government systems (like the USA), wide spread education for the masses, a never ending stream of innovation and new technology, a moral awaking which checked individual and corporate greed, the spreading American ideals and institution throughout the world, etc. The teacher listened to me and then dismissed class a full 55 minutes early. I said everything which needed to be said, problem was I was totally wrong! Until I actually took the time to read Marx (in those days college sophomores rarely read) did I realize that our educational systems, our media, our politicians, and most definitely our business leaders had and have a vested interest in distorting to the point of misrepresenting Marx’s analysis of capitalism, much of which is proving to be true as we move through time.

“In simple terms, capitalism is a society ruled by money and those who possess it. The wealthy hold disproportionate power within capitalism and use it to preserve their interests, especially the ability to make more money.”

Um, no. What you are describing is the form of statism known as fascism (aka corporatism). The fascists also don’t make money – they make fiat money. Real money is a medium of exchange which has a finite quantity and is used by mutual voluntary agreement. Fiat money is a medium of exchange which has no finite quantity and is used by threat of violence.

Capitalism is a theory in which everyone may save their surplus earnings until they accrue capital which they can then invest as they wish. It’s never been a practice. Fascists and other statists often pretend to be capitalists because it’s easy to sucker people into supporting statism when they think they can strike it rich by virtue of their own hard work and good ideas.

Note in our society the government seizes the surplus earnings through taxation and hands them out to itself or it’s fascist cronies, thus forcing any entrepreneur to beg for a loan from a fascist banking institution.

it seems we just have different definitions of the word capitalism. your definition is a theory, which you say has never been practiced. i believe my definition has greater applicability, because it’s based on the real system in which we live, and the common understanding of the word capitalism.

if you want to call the system we live in fascist, go for it, i won’t stop you. but it meets my (and i think most people’s) definition of a capitalist society, because the economy is controlled by private property, such as enormous banks and corporations. capitalism for me is much more than a theory, it is the hard reality of our world, a reality of oppression, abuse, psychological distress, war, prejudice, prisons, and a long history of trauma that goes back 500 years.

i think it’s valuable to define terms that make immediate sense to the people you’re trying to reach. for example, if we live in a “fascist” society right now, and have done so forever, what makes fascist Italy or Nazi Germany so different? because they were very different.

There is an oligarchy that does control the world, whether we want to admit this or not. Mostly the banks and the major corporates are the vehicles they employ.

I am of the opinion that we find ourselves in a modern day feudal system. The majority of the citizens in this world actually seem to enjoy this form of management system. They seem to be ignorant of this fact in the social circles in which I move, and that to me is prove in itself. The media is a tool that was finetuned by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Frued.

Attention distraction through entertainment and the fast pace of life I find to be mainly the reason for our ignorance in these matters.

I humbly mention that I have authored a book called – The Pickpocket Effect of Capitalism. It is available In both Kindle and softback on amazon.

I have been searching for websites where I could express myself in this regard, and therefore joined this one.

I have to mention that I feel very isolated in my social circle regarding this subject, and would love it if more people could voice their opinions. I would be honoured if you people would consider joining my website.

I agree we are brainwashed to extent or at least the media is attempting to or believes is has done so. Having said that, seeing the large number of reader comments tells me that many people read this article (and possibly others like it) and are not out there brain dead watching some reality show that is in actuality fake and scripted.

Nicely written. I like how outlined the problems and solutions-very thoughtful. I am most interested in how the consciousness of society will shift when Americans have been indoctrinated into passive obedience. Many of us who would agree and would even read this are out on the fringe, and I do think that peaceful change is possible but only through a massive awakening across “main street” America to the growing changes in our world.

I don’t know how that will be done. But I think that as long as folks like you are thinking and sharing your thoughts there is a chance for positive change.

Even if I don’t know which new social and economic system is going to be the best for mankind after capitalism, I do agree that the capitalism seems to be reaching toward it’s final stage. I wonder what will be the next, but I am sure that people around the world need to go through some suffer till any new system is going to be settled down again. Keep up the good work, dude.

Capatilism, communism they really destroyed humanity. created a strong borders where we all are slaved no mattere who u r, a graduate from havard yale or a porter on mount everest.Where is our life if we were born or breed grown up trained and awarded a degree to be slave of corporate were i will invest all my life just to feed, and have a 26 holidays in a year.

We dont say we dont want to work and get benefit we will work for humanity not for a corporate who owns a huge business, produces in china or india because labour is cheap there and always increases the price where the crap dose the money goes and why they have to go there if they want to sell it if its becoming more expensive may be i dont know how business works..

but i know once the capatalism dies,, wars will die in this planet and humans will live as humans not as a bonded slaves.

Here in the UK we recently had a BBc radio programme on capitalism which explored its utility. Suffice to say the conclusion was ‘not perfect but it works’. None of the fundamentals were examined, nor was the unsupported assumption that capitalism has benefitted us collectively. I hope your book will dig deep at the real dynamics and challenge all the assumptions about this way of life that is consuming us and the planet.

I want to be able to tell my children that my not having a financial inheritance to give them or a social class they can inherit is not my fault, and that in fact it was all an abberation. But my duty to them is such that I will give them all the knowledge I have about how to succeed in capitalism or end up ill and aching from hard work that benefits others. I hope they won’t experience the uphill struggle and inevitable failure that we and countless generations have faced, despite our merits but I would rather they try something else as well as looking after their own interests. Books like yours are sure to be on their shelves.

I think many of us share in your opinion regarding inheritance for our children and so forth.
You can however start to distance yourself from this capitalistic systems pickpocketing effect.
1. Understand how the tax system works in your Country and make absolutely sure that you do everything legally to benefit as much as possible in whatever desicions you make for yourself and your family.
2. Pay of your debt as quickly as possibly, and to do that you have to stop making anymore debt!!
3. Switch off the Television and stop supporting the mainstream media in all aspects.
4. Should you have spare cash, do not save it in a Bank, but rather find a way to invest it in something that increases in value.
5. Most importantly, invest in yourself, and I am not talking about a degree or something, no! Find one or more mentors that have proven themselves being wealth creators.The problem is financial education, I am not talking about getting an eduction in the Ivy League, no sir, that could result in total financial collapse.
I can suggest someone like Dr Hannes Dreyer – google his name and see what you think. Maybe you have someone else in mind.

Needless to say that this is not a quick fix, but rather a good start in the right direction!

Well, I really wish you all the best in whatever you decide to focus on.

Starting by point 4, you are not thinking clearly. Your advice may be financially good, but if you are realistic, that cannot work for the better future. Its based on fact that 95% of other people will suck hard, while you enjoy your wealth. What you present is just greed, which is so typical for today’s capitalism, negating even basic ethical principles.
What we need today are people with talent, who are not poisoned by greed of capitalism, but can use their talent for broader good. I don’t say being rich is evil, but investments with pure intention of earning more money are evil, because they suck resources and energy from system to satisfy one’s greed, and not providing any value to the environment.
Let be talented people and people who want to benefit world become rich, not evil today’s capitalists.

this is a nice website, but i am little bit afraid ideas posted here are more dreaming than reality. Needs of all people in this world will never be fulfilled. We do need growth and it may not be correlating with damaging earth, but rather technology growth over economic one. I agree, that capitalism is getting sick, but solution is not to entirely replace it, but to replace sick parts and make it more healthy. If our effort was more focused on technology growth, than economic growth, we could invest more resources into technology. Space is big and allows almost infinite resources and expansion, but our greed is slowing us to achieve our global goals of evolution.

Right now capitalism is making a power play like never before, they are attempting to put the whole world under their oppressive thumb. You will accept your place in their caste system or you will starve once they have fully instituted it. Now is the time to become part of any organization against these immoral greed ridden elitists. The end game they have for us and our future generations is not something we’ll want.

What is Capitalism.
1. I don’t think it is mercantilism, because while mercantile systems do seek profit, the producers still own the means of production (land, tools, etc.), and profit is made and wealth accumulated based on the ability of merchants to buy, sell, create monopolies, demand, scarcity, etc.
2. The definition–Any system for the management and distribution of capital (= any production in excess of that needed to satisfy the basic needs of an individual)–also took place long before modern capitalism developed. In fact, just about all human societies (economies) produce surplus. It’s what happens to that surplus that’s the interesting part.
3. Marx: A ‘mode’ (or historically dominant) form of production in which wealth is accumulated by owners of the means of production (land, factories, etc.) based on the “FREED” (landless) labor of workers. The wealth is then either spent (consumed) or reinvested in more production (then it becomes CAPITAL). Indicator that you’re looking at a capitalist system: wages. Now, even today, lots of production (and reproduction) take place outside of wage systems, but many would argue that wages are the dominant form of organization of labor today, and that even those who are paid in ways that are not exactly wages, are affected by the comparison with wage system.

In reply to the article on capitalism, thank you for taking time to share. Capitalism allows greed and envy to rule. By placing your existence and faith in a shady system is basically selling your soul. They got the nukes, but what we have is for I-ver! Give thanks to the Creator! -Jahwarrior

Enjoyable read – as is every theoretical alternative to the current situation.

I have a few questions. Forgive me if these have already been mentioned or discussed on your site, and if they have can you direct me to them?

What is your actual alternative to capitalism, or are you proposing no follow-up economic alternative? Socialism, eventually leading to communism, offer more restrictions and less freedom due to the excessive involvement from those in power.

-” I can’t prescribe the ideal post-capitalist world and I wouldn’t try”-

This worries me somewhat. If you have no alternative system then how can you claim your ideals aren’t simply dogma or rhetoric? Democracy, freedom, justice and sustainability are again being belittled into buzzwords aimed at catching the reader’s eye.

The most important thing when changing the fundamentals of society is the transition from old to new. The destruction of the old system needs to be counterbalanced with the creation of the new system. If you have no idea of what the new system is, you’re opening society up to reckless destruction without any direction – anarchy. I sincerely hope you’re not a proponent of anarchy, as this is little more than a system which allows the biggest bully to win and the weakest to be cannon fodder.

My other concern is your constant divisive comments about “left” and “right”. Neither left nor right are the way forward, as both simply divide the people and weaken us. Instead, we should look to walk the middle path, neutralising the extremes of both the left and the right, whilst uniting the people on central ground.

Alas, it seems all theoretical systems ignore one crucial constant – humans. The order of mathematical equations on which theories are built forget about the chaotic nature of human beings. The vices and virtues of our species often determine the failure or success of a theoretical system when implemented into reality.

Your site is very much geared towards a faithful approach in believing our virtues will overcome our vices. As a sceptic, I’m not so sure. It seems the universe is inherently indifferent, where opposites are in constant existence. I fail to see a time when humanity isn’t susceptible to greed or laziness.

Also, can you tell me how ending capitalism will end the pillaging of the world’s resources? I presume this is built on the assumption that ending consumerism – a key component in capitalism – will end the constant need for excessive production – the main use of resources. However, I fail to see this having much of an affect without global political cooperation. I would also argue that the unsustainable population boom is a greater contributing factor to the drain on resources, even more so than our economic system.

You also mention nuclear warfare as being a possibility should capitalism continue. I’m finding it hard to make the link. Living in the UK, I only have to look at the history of my nation and my fellow Europeans to understand how devastating our violent past has been. Ever since our nations have been linked through multinational capitalism, the power of governments has been neutralised. Why would the UK government attack the French or the Germans when it would be counter-productive to our economy? I would argue that an alternative system whereby resources are under the control of a state, as opposed to corporations, is far more likely to cause global warfare due to national governments wanting a greater control over the globe’s resources.

Anyway, I’d be interested to hear your response, either on here or directly via email.

i agree that a basic faith in human goodness is absolutely necessary to achieve a better world. if we fall into cynicism, we might as well give up now because we’re playing into the hands of the enemy (the power-structure).

in terms of “my” alternative to zombie-capitalism, i am working on the idea of “living radicalism,” which is a philosophy meaning:

A) placing positive value on LIFE, rather than capital or production, and basing ideas on our actual lived experience and tangible knowledge, rather than dogma
B) RADICAL meaning “root”, as in, we have to cut through the smokescreen of false truth and try to discover the core of reality which is hidden below the surface. in other words, a relentless questioning of all professed ideas.

i’m not interested in telling everyone on Earth how they should live, mind you. so i hesitate to put forward a “system” and say “everyone live THIS way!” instead, i believe we need to liberate human potential from the power structures which oppress and control us, including the self-defeating attitudes we have internalized from those systems.

i believe people naturally gravitate towards democracy, freedom, etc., and it is the power structures which divide us and turn our thoughts towards selfishness and greed.

you might want to look into “anarchy” more, because if you ask the anarchists, “anarchy” means the opposite of what you’ve described. in other words, order and equality, and the destruction of all “bullies” or hierarchy.

capitalism IS the source of the destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. there is really no way around it. blaming population is just avoiding a critique of the power structures which profit and benefit from this destruction.

finally, im not saying nuclear warfare is very likely, i have no idea how likely it is. it is worrisome that Israel (which has nuclear weapons) is always saber-rattling against Iran (which may at some point gain nuclear weapons).

i’m all for international cooperation, that is key and without it, i agree we are doomed. i think it will be much easier for people to cooperate once we get these corporations and states out of the way with their endless competitive drives for power and profit. humans are much more likely to want to talk about things, than drop bombs on one another. power structures order us to do the opposite.

“Hats Off” I do applaud your commitment to humanity and the efforts that you’ve applied to the cause. I really do agree with your mindset on the evolution of mankind. Obviously, I’m not as schooled on the topic as you and many of your readers so some of my questions or thoughts may seem remedial, but this is a new topic to me.

To start, I am self employeed in the automotive service industry. (I know, a business owner that wants to end capitalism, it’s like I’m a traitor) I’m also a believing Christian. Not that my religious views should be forced on others, but for me, I feel God must be VERY disappointed with what we (mankind) has done with the planet that He’s made for us and how we’ve treated our fellow man. Is there even a number of how many human beings have been killed by their fellow man since the days of Adam and Eve? I’m sure it’s a staggering number, and increasing on a daily basis.

I feel that humans are selfish beings, like a child we think everything is “Mine!” It’s time for man to “Grow-Up”. I also feel Capitalism has been used to harness our individual selfishness and used to fulfill others individual selfishness. Example; I want to be rich, so I will find someone who needs/desires money and hire (exploit) them for my own gain. I think it could be best said that Capitalism creates Individualism within a society.

So, how do we change? (I know – The Million Dollar Question – pardon the pun) I think America is the best place to start. We have laws, written by our countries’ founders that state our government should be for the people, by the people. We have the technoligy so that every voice in America can be heard through a vote. But, does anyone in America really feel like their voice has been heard? Does anyone really trust that our elected leaders are looking out for our true best interest? I wonder if surveyed how many people would think our leaders are honest. I also wonder if a canidate ran for President under the Independant ballet and just campaigned saying “I Will Return The USA Back To It’s People” if they’d actually have a chance. I don’t know, but I do know that most of Americans are fed up with banks and corporations controlling our way of life. I think originally capitalism worked, because it made individuals feel like they had control of their future and security. But, after this recent depression it opened the eyes of everyone. We have control as long as “They” let us have control. Very scary thought.

I know this has kind of turned in to a political rant, but I’m thinking a kind of Census Democratic approach would be the winning ticket. I’m curious on your thoughts about this, or how you would suggest getting this ball rolling.

I really appreciate what you are doing here. I am tired of injustice; injustice against mankind, the weak, animals, and our home, the Planet Earth. I am frustrated and do not know how to make a difference. Where can I start? I want to do more than hold a sign. I want real change for our future.

Sentry has some good thoughts. Change does begin with having a land base. That is essential. However, sustainable living means a community of like minded people willing to work together. One person alone cannot possibly survive. It begins with food. Corporates love protests because it consumes a lot of time and money and accomplishes nothing, plus they can identify the malcontents. Best to look to the Amish community and how they do it.

Hello you all
I believe we cannot change the world… or Capitalism!
BUT…We can change “our” world by seperating from “their” sick world.

I’m a old “hippie Bible student” an all you need to know about “religion”, is that the creator intended us to own and share the world.
Geneses…”in the beginning” concludes at Revelations “at the end” and it’s the same beautiful thing. Man shares and tends the earth. No one… can get richer than that !

At present…we are at the end part of the crap between the beginnig and a wonderfull future

I believe we should start talking about separating from the destruction of capitalist images … the concrete jungle cities.

I believe the worldwide “back to the land” movement is mans gut feel and a good start. Ecovillages are now worldwide and growing.

You are doing a great job here, especially in putting all the various problems associated with capitalism as you have. In Australia, where I live we have a very stubborn hostile populace in that just bringing out flaws in their methods to overcome problems they are facing are attacked …discussion …what is that? Clearly capitalism and the private property owner ship of the means of subsistence that is subordinated to profits is murder in my opinion. What I am driving at rather poorly is, I don’t believe there is a problem with the rational/use/planning/sustainability of what we need that is not covered between the Anarchists and what Marx advocated…(nothing to do with Stalin etc) and that we are still caught up in ideological issues rather than viewing the feeding and housing, sustaining of life on a scientific basis…putting the care and nurture of life itself as the motivation underlying our daily work…we would do this because love for our fellow man and the inclusive society that it would create. Thanks for all your work, I do the best I can, poor health and like many victimized by the system..itself. NB Political consciousness has taken a beating, its pre 1800 here, and conspiracy theories are believed on no evidence, as they require no work.

I stumbled onto this site a few days ago, and honestly, I’ve been on the same quest to find the answer to “post-capitalism” since I was in middle school. The biggest shocker hit me in an unconventional way actually. I recently jumped into a new MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game) that freshly launched with an untouched social economy and ready-to-carve economical landscape. The game was amazing for the first few days and everyone was really pleasant to converse with. Most of the game at first could be completed alone and you could essentially get the best, most valued items in the game with a little elbow grease and time and a lot of early players did just that. Then something really crazy happened; something almost identical to the Rockefeller oil era monopoly. The developers of the game released a new patch (changes to the game) that made it REALLY difficult for new players to acquire the same items without spending 100x the time in game. What followed was a heavy elitist, almost capitalist-like mindset. The rich players in the game kept getting richer and the poorer couldn’t close the gap because new measures (equivalent of societal laws) were put in place. Then the players took to the forums. The rich appraised the new patch saying it was fair and that everyone should work hard for what they want whereas the poor players in the game had the exact opposite reaction. Long story short, the only people that were left playing the game were either ignorant new players who didn’t know any better (I guess the sheep of capitalism) and elitist players who got off by having power over the weaker players. It’s such a similar scenario to capitalism that it scares me. Strip those same elites of all their power, leave them in isolation, and then see how long it takes them to wish they could just be equal with someone on the bottom rung. I’d rather we all work together towards the same goal for the sake of humanity, like our ancestors did with stonehenge. They didn’t know it wouldn’t serve any purpose, but they ALL believed in something and came together to get it done; society feels so lonely without this virtue. I’m a pizza delivery driver and regardless I love my life and I’m living the dream. I don’t care about money, just that I need it for basic needs. I have dreams of doing other things; i’m constantly reading articles to better myself or diligently working on making music that’s different and emotional stimulating. I would be happy with my place in society for the rest of my life, if only I could actually sustain my life with this job. I wish others would realize what they have and cherish it so that maybe one day we can get past this bump in human evolution known as capitalism. Love what you have, even if it’s a job you can’t stand.

I then became an employed realist with a view of first national and then global politics. Realising that it feels destructive to capitalise without regard for the character and substance of my existence and the collective existence of humanity.

I then became an unemployed human who has been left with the question of participation in the capitalist dream which I observe as having reached it’s climax. I must question how my dreams can become translatable to monetary value. How can I sell what I did not buy for money without perverting the wealth the is not regulated or controlled within a captilastic realm.

The tenticles of capitalism so stretched and gripping on each mind and the fear of losing wealth and a place in the rat-race has left many self deluded and deliberately blind to reality being so comfortable in denial.

Effectively had capitalism in my view destroyed humanity with fabrication and perversion of natural systems and guides set in place to without effort provide and sustain all of the natural world.

Further and further pushed from reality and the contentment of natural order a fool is born helpless to the order a mind becomes a tool and the orders question is how then can it be used.

There is no suspicion from the occupied mind save for a selective few.

Change must come and change will come sadly with the mind so reluctant even to the point of destruction for its satisfaction and deluded peace it will not come easy.

The sheep are just that, sheep and must I admit to freedom or poverty?

First the lines of lies set by capitalist engineers the ideas engrained of capitalist technicians must be overiden being that those tools are in the hands of the “Capitalists” mankind will become wrestlers a wrestling match is inevitable.

Who will win? Winners losers and losers winners? Sheepish men and women scattered in all corners for the things that they do fear homelessness poverty inability to fend for and defend loved ones becomes a prison of their own making as they relinquish themselves to the care of what they support without much choice.

There are troubled times ahead. Unless we become truthful and realistic and engage with love and care for one another a peaceful transition into a new social order with a very different value system becomes impossible.

Humans seem to be able to control others by their addictions such as sex and drugs, I think oil and other fossil fuels are an addiction used to control us. It would be nice if we could be dependent on the sun instead of oil and the 1% would have a harder time controlling us. Monopoly was made as a game to replicate capitalism. I look at capitalism like Monopoly where we are near the end of the game. everything is owned by 1 person and the rest are loosers